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
    More: Scary, American citizens, Obama, Americans, United States, Obama administration, Gadahn, Anwar al-Awlaki, risk aversion  
•       •       •

5079 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:00 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-11 11:01:04 AM  

Nabb1: When was this declared "non-justiciable" by the courts?


anything to deal with war powers falls under the political question doctrine

requiring the judicial to rule that every single political question is individually within the bounds of the political doctrine question doctrine defeats the purpose of the doctrine

Nabb1: Do you understand the difference between a law being unconstitutional as written and unconstitutional as applied?


except there is no constitutional restriction on war powers. there simply isn't - that's the purpose of those marine on d-day examples that I gave. either assert that said marine violated the constitution by killing and indefinitely detaining those people without giving them a day in court, or accept that war powers aren't bound to criminal prosecution before killing/indefinitely detaining. you don't get it both ways, and just ignoring the example doesn't make it go away

MattStafford: Do you think Obama should be doing it?


that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you
 
2014-02-11 11:03:08 AM  

sprawl15: that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you


That he cares about right and wrong?
 
2014-02-11 11:03:31 AM  

trappedspirit: U.S. officials have not revealed the identity of the alleged operative or the country where he is believed to be located, citing concern that disclosing those details would send him deeper into hiding and prevent any U.S. strike.

Brilliant.  So now, because of the clever non-release of information here, all of the Americans overseas that are currently part of the al-Qaeda terrorist network and involved in ongoing plotting against American targets are all saying, "He can't mean me.  He must mean someone else."


The name Gadahn popped up in the article.  That was not an accident.  The same thing occurred when we targeted al Alwahi.
 
2014-02-11 11:03:35 AM  

sprawl15: that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you


What does it say about me?

I'll be honest with you, I'm less concerned about the legality of actions vs the morality and efficacy of actions.

If it was legal for Obama to just nuke every other country, would I say that nuking every other country is a terrible policy and that he shouldn't do it for a variety of reasons?  Yes.  Would you come in here to defend him by claiming that that policy is completely legal?  Apparently, yes.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:27 AM  

bluefox3681: My limited understanding is that the Crosby rule would not apply in this case.


the 'crosby rule'? it's rule 43, i just linked it to you, and it predates crosby by half a century. also, the concept has been around for far longer than that

hopt v utah (1887):
Such being the relation which the citizen holds to the public, and the object of punishment for public wrongs, the Legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:34 AM  

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

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

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


If a US citizen (or the citizen of another country) is brought back to the US for trial, they're entitled to the protections of the constitution.

Actions of the US towards US citizens on foreign soil is a bit fuzzier, but operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:41 AM  

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

As determined by whom?


This.

William Ayers was part of a terrorist organization that bombed government buildings. But since he is friends with Obama, he is not a terrorist?
 
2014-02-11 11:09:40 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Actions of the US towards US citizens on foreign soil is a bit fuzzier, but operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.


Would there be some kind of process for that happening, or would presidential decree suffice?
 
2014-02-11 11:11:13 AM  

MattStafford: If it was legal for Obama to just nuke every other country, would I say that nuking every other country is a terrible policy and that he shouldn't do it for a variety of reasons? Yes. Would you come in here to defend him by claiming that that policy is completely legal? Apparently, yes.


that's because understanding the legal basis for action is important to understanding how to make those actions not-legal. if your goal is just to be frustrated on the internet, then sure, being ignorant as to how anything works is perfectly acceptable...just don't get buttmad like some other posters in here when said ignorance is pointed out.

if you actually have an eye towards problem solving, it might behoove you to figure out what you would need to change to make it illegal for obama to nuke every other country, and focus your outrage on that single point. if you actually cared about the issue, then you would realize that the amount of idiotic, bullshiat rhetoric spewed in this thread causes far more harm to the cause than helps it.

fretting and pulling out your fainting couch is well and good when you just need a quick pick-me-up on a tuesday morning and think a bit of ignorant populist outrage is just the thing to hit that spot, but i'm aware enough to know that ignorant populist outrage is exactly what caused the hilariously broad scope of powers in the 9/11 aumf in the first farking place and i'd rather not go down the road of jumping from one blind bull in a china shop to another

hope that helps
 
2014-02-11 11:13:08 AM  

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


Does that include the CIA, MI6 or Mossad operating as terrorist networks or are they immune, because Murica?
 
2014-02-11 11:14:34 AM  

MattStafford: TuteTibiImperes: Actions of the US towards US citizens on foreign soil is a bit fuzzier, but operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.

Would there be some kind of process for that happening, or would presidential decree suffice?


In a war zone it shouldn't even require a presidential decree.  If a soldier in Afghanistan is getting shot at by a group of insurgents, one or more of whom happen to be American citizens, he shouldn't have to require a court order to be able to return fire or call in an air strike.

The war on terror is certainly more amorphous, and taking out terrorists with drone strikes when they aren't actively engaged in fighting at the time isn't quite the same thing, but I don't have a problem with it.  If we're going to say that our government has the right to shoot missiles at citizens of other nations engaging in terroristic activities abroad it would by hypocritical of us to say that we can't do the same to people from the US who are engaging in those same activities abroad.
 
2014-02-11 11:15:06 AM  

sprawl15: that's because understanding the legal basis for action is important to understanding how to make those actions not-legal. if your goal is just to be frustrated on the internet, then sure, being ignorant as to how anything works is perfectly acceptable...just don't get buttmad like some other posters in here when said ignorance is pointed out.

if you actually have an eye towards problem solving, it might behoove you to figure out what you would need to change to make it illegal for obama to nuke every other country, and focus your outrage on that single point. if you actually cared about the issue, then you would realize that the amount of idiotic, bullshiat rhetoric spewed in this thread causes far more harm to the cause than helps it.

fretting and pulling out your fainting couch is well and good when you just need a quick pick-me-up on a tuesday morning and think a bit of ignorant populist outrage is just the thing to hit that spot, but i'm aware enough to know that ignorant populist outrage is exactly what caused the hilariously broad scope of powers in the 9/11 aumf in the first farking place and i'd rather not go down the road of jumping from one blind bull in a china shop to another

hope that helps


I still haven't seen you say that you disagree with what Obama is doing.  You are refusing to make your moral determination on this policy public, which seems to say a lot about you, to be honest.

I have already dispensed with the legal arguments - I'm no longer worried about them.  What I am worried about is the morality and efficacy of what we are doing.  Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral or effective.  So I want to know, do you think these policies are moral and effective?  Do you think Obama should continue these policies?  Don't bring up the law, I don't care about it.
 
2014-02-11 11:18:59 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.


even if this were true (it's not), it's utterly irrelevant since it hasn't been done
 
2014-02-11 11:20:28 AM  

sprawl15: MattStafford: If it was legal for Obama to just nuke every other country, would I say that nuking every other country is a terrible policy and that he shouldn't do it for a variety of reasons? Yes. Would you come in here to defend him by claiming that that policy is completely legal? Apparently, yes.

that's because understanding the legal basis for action is important to understanding how to make those actions not-legal. if your goal is just to be frustrated on the internet, then sure, being ignorant as to how anything works is perfectly acceptable...just don't get buttmad like some other posters in here when said ignorance is pointed out.

if you actually have an eye towards problem solving, it might behoove you to figure out what you would need to change to make it illegal for obama to nuke every other country, and focus your outrage on that single point. if you actually cared about the issue, then you would realize that the amount of idiotic, bullshiat rhetoric spewed in this thread causes far more harm to the cause than helps it.

fretting and pulling out your fainting couch is well and good when you just need a quick pick-me-up on a tuesday morning and think a bit of ignorant populist outrage is just the thing to hit that spot, but i'm aware enough to know that ignorant populist outrage is exactly what caused the hilariously broad scope of powers in the 9/11 aumf in the first farking place and i'd rather not go down the road of jumping from one blind bull in a china shop to another

hope that helps


Wow, for a person so concerned by the distracting effect of BS 'white noise', you sure do seem to favor snarky little ad hominems instead of substantive argument.

sprawl15: MattStafford: Do you think Obama should be doing it?

that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you


That you evade giving a direct answer to that question says quite a bit about you.
 
2014-02-11 11:20:54 AM  

Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

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

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.

No, you don't. People don't lose rights because terrorism.

maybe in the bizarro world they gain rights  but in this one we all lose rights because of terrorism.

Your defeatist tone may offer rationalization, but it's hardly a justification.

If you are saying people don't lose rights because of terrorism you are arguing from a fantasy land. People have lost rights (warning: this is going to hurt you because it includes W's term) for the past 12 years, we have the NSA spying on us at this point, your kid gets groped at the airport and can't take a juicebox on a plane.

I understand that, and I have always had a huge problem with the erosion of our civil liberties since 2001 under the guise if "the War on Terror." You keep bringing up "the past 12 years" as if that matters to the legality of the issue.


That was probably someone else, I wasn't trying to argue the legality of the issue. As far as the legality of it, they have been and are doing it in plain view of the entire world while saying it is legal and nobody is stopping them, so it has apparently become legal.
 
2014-02-11 11:22:25 AM  

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

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

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



3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-11 11:22:27 AM  

MattStafford: You are refusing to make your moral determination on this policy public, which seems to say a lot about you, to be honest.


it says i care more about facts than scoring e-cred

seriously though, in what contexts have you heard the phrase 'deeper cancer' used to describe something good

i mean to pull the moral high ground card you basically have to also say that you're a farking moron who doesn't understand anything they read, so i want to make sure you're aware of that. everyone gets one takeback.
 
2014-02-11 11:24:40 AM  

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

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

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


Let's put it in a slightly different context:

You're driving your car down the highway, and the oil light comes on indicating it's time to change the oil. "No big deal," you think. "I've got a thousand miles till I REALLY need to change it, I'll get it done as soon as I get around to it."

To be fair, this isn't an unreasonable stance, just as long as you follow through with a prompt solution to a rather minor issue. But what happens when the minor issue isn't addressed? Say you put the light out, and then don't, in fact, change the oil. The light comes back on, minor issue, so same response. "It's like 40 bucks and two hours to do this. I'll get around to it, it isn't worth the hassle right now, I'm too busy."

So you keep pressing the light off and continuing about your days until one day, it happens: the check engine light comes on. You understand the significance of this elevated severity, and rush to the auto parts store or whomever you have change your oil, praying that there are no new issues due to the negligence. Sure, you might make it in time, but what happens when, in your desperate attempt to fix this new rather severe issue, your engine finally seizes up?

Don't you wish that you just addressed the problem when the minor errors and alerts came up, instead of the gamble of being able to solve it when shiat hits the fan?
 
2014-02-11 11:27:13 AM  

The Numbers: Wow, for a person so concerned by the distracting effect of BS 'white noise', you sure do seem to favor snarky little ad hominems instead of substantive argument.


is it bring your autism to fark day

The Numbers: That you evade giving a direct answer to that question says quite a bit about you.


apparently so
 
2014-02-11 11:28:37 AM  

sprawl15: i mean to pull the moral high ground card you basically have to also say that you're a farking moron who doesn't understand anything they read, so i want to make sure you're aware of that. everyone gets one takeback.


I'm gonna level with you, my credibility around here isn't the highest as is, so sure - I'll accept the farking moron tag.

Do you think that what Obama is doing is moral?  Do you think that what he is doing is effective?  Do you think he should continue doing it?

It seems like you're doing your very best to not answer these questions.
 
2014-02-11 11:29:25 AM  

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

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


The Constitution of the United States applies when the US is dealing with their citizens. It is not a contract between foreign countries and US citizens. The king of Bahrain does not have to honor the 1st Amendment while US citizens are in his domain, but the US Govt cannot infringe upon these "unalienable" rights regardless of domain.
 
2014-02-11 11:29:34 AM  
WEDGE ISSUE!
 
2014-02-11 11:32:25 AM  

MattStafford: I'm gonna level with you, my credibility around here isn't the highest as is, so sure - I'll accept the farking moron tag.


alright so to answer my own question to you, "in what contexts have you heard the phrase 'deeper cancer' used to describe something good", the answer is none. in no context is the phrase 'deeper cancer' used to describe something good. when i called what's happening symptomatic of a deeper cancer, i was saying that this situation is so farked up, so beyond what should be happening, that it's exposing errors deep in the fundamental systems of governance. that it's so bad it's sucking all of reality into its black hole of wrongness.

MattStafford: Do you think that what Obama is doing is moral? Do you think that what he is doing is effective? Do you think he should continue doing it?


no. no. no.
 
2014-02-11 11:35:11 AM  
well, whatever s/he's doing I bet it doesn't involve something like lol cats
 
2014-02-11 11:35:22 AM  

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

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

The Constitution of the United States applies when the US is dealing with their citizens. It is not a contract between foreign countries and US citizens. The king of Bahrain does not have to honor the 1st Amendment while US citizens are in his domain, but the US Govt cannot infringe upon these "unalienable" rights regardless of domain.


Complex stuff, that.

I think every comment in this thread really says a lot about the whoever made it.
 
2014-02-11 11:37:20 AM  

sprawl15: The Numbers: Wow, for a person so concerned by the distracting effect of BS 'white noise', you sure do seem to favor snarky little ad hominems instead of substantive argument.

is it bring your autism to fark day

The Numbers: That you evade giving a direct answer to that question says quite a bit about you.

apparently so


Ouch man, that really hurt. FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.
 
2014-02-11 11:37:35 AM  
Sigh. For instance, I'm tired and proofreading mode is set to "eh".
 
2014-02-11 11:41:56 AM  

The Numbers: FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.


cool fact
 
2014-02-11 11:54:47 AM  

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

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


Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.
 
2014-02-11 11:54:51 AM  

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


The problem with that line of thinking is what is considered a terrorist org and what does hostile to America actually mean? everyone has their own bias and their own judgement on this.
 
2014-02-11 12:03:18 PM  

MattStafford: Do you think that what Obama is doing is moral? Do you think that what he is doing is effective? Do you think he should continue doing it?


Neutralizing (either through capture or by killing) members of al-Qaeda and other organizations associated with them - particularly high-ranking members - is a public service that makes the entire world better off. Obama would be negligent if he didn't do it whenever the opportunity arose.

The AUMF as written is a very broad and sweeping law that could, in theory, be used to justify genuinely bad things (as with sprawl15's hypothetical of Obama launching a missile at a homeless man out of his Presidential limo), but this isn't one of them.
 
2014-02-11 12:09:32 PM  

Nabb1: jso2897: This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
[i18.photobucket.com image 432x335]

Well, that's pretty dumb. He was tried and convicted in a court of law, no? Sentence was carried out after appellate relief was exhausted and everything. Nice work.



Nabb1, Question for you.

If either the FBI, OK State Police, OKC Police Dept, or OK County Sheriff's dept. had received information that Tim McVeigh had a rental truck with an explosive device in the back and was on his way to OKC to detonate the device, what DUE PROCESS would the government been required to afford him, BEFORE stopping, apprehending and/or bringing arms to bear against him?

Are you suggesting that when it becomes known that someone is engaged in a plot to commit a crime (including the crime of treason, which by definition includes taking up arms against the US) that the government is obligated to wait until AFTER they have caused the harm before it can act?
 
2014-02-11 12:11:35 PM  

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

The constitution makes no reference to any geographical limitations wrt to the restrictions it places on the actions of the government. At least not in the Bill of Rights.


There may be jurisdictions but I think we both know the way you grow the concepts in the Constitution and Bill of Rights globally is to extend them whenever and where ever you can.
 
2014-02-11 12:25:44 PM  

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

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

Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.


I threw around "due process" in this discussion because the arbitrary decision to execute an American citizen without a trial or any kind of legal defense, wherever he is or what he is doing, is exactly the opposite of due process. And its hardly news that any branch of the government acts outside the boundaries of the constitution these days; because they can get away with it.
 
2014-02-11 12:27:03 PM  

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

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

Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.


No, that's wrong. Due process has fundamental meaning apart from it's application or lack of it in any place or situation. It does not mean "following the rules". Congress giving "broad discretion" does not mean that anything done under that authority gets a pass on basic notions of rule of law and fundamental rights, of which due process is a part.

In Egypt right now, for instance, people are being rounded up, tortured, then given show trials or just imprisoned without charge. This is being done under the authority of law, with broad popular support. That doesn't mean that people are afforded due process.  In fact, due process is only worth worrying over when it's a protection AGAINST majoritarian and legal abuse. Otherwise we're just a mob.
 
2014-02-11 12:28:09 PM  

lawboy87: Nabb1: jso2897: This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
[i18.photobucket.com image 432x335]

Well, that's pretty dumb. He was tried and convicted in a court of law, no? Sentence was carried out after appellate relief was exhausted and everything. Nice work.


Nabb1, Question for you.

If either the FBI, OK State Police, OKC Police Dept, or OK County Sheriff's dept. had received information that Tim McVeigh had a rental truck with an explosive device in the back and was on his way to OKC to detonate the device, what DUE PROCESS would the government been required to afford him, BEFORE stopping, apprehending and/or bringing arms to bear against him?

Are you suggesting that when it becomes known that someone is engaged in a plot to commit a crime (including the crime of treason, which by definition includes taking up arms against the US) that the government is obligated to wait until AFTER they have caused the harm before it can act?


I think the term that's eluding your argument is "imminent threat".
 
2014-02-11 12:30:43 PM  

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

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

Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.

No, that's wrong. Due process has fundamental meaning apart from it's application or lack of it in any place or situation. It does not mean "following the rules". Congress giving "broad discretion" does not mean that anything done under that authority gets a pass on basic notions of rule of law and fundamental rights, of which due process is a part.

In Egypt right now, for instance, people are being rounded up, tortured, then given show trials or just imprisoned without charge. This is being done under the authority of law, with broad popular support. That doesn't mean that people are afforded due process.  In fact, due process is only worth worrying over when it's a protection AGAINST majoritarian and legal abuse. Otherwise we're just a mob.


I love that term "broad discretion", as if that's an acceptable alternative to enumerated constitutional powers.
 
2014-02-11 12:34:25 PM  

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

The problem with that line of thinking is what is considered a terrorist org and what does hostile to America actually mean? everyone has their own bias and their own judgement on this.


Many people here like to call the GOP a terrorist organization and a threat to America. Should arbitrary designations like that cone with an automatic death sentence? Depends on your political affiliation, I guess, and whether or not you mind living in a third world banana republic.
 
2014-02-11 12:37:51 PM  

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

The problem with that line of thinking is what is considered a terrorist org and what does hostile to America actually mean? everyone has their own bias and their own judgement on this.


This shouldn't need to be ambiguous.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war -- presumably so that the peoples' elected representatives can determine which entities (countries, terrorist groups, etc.) actually qualify as "enemies".  Why Congress has so thoroughly abdicated that (huge) power to the President, I don't really understand.  Putting the matter to a vote like any other law seems like a lot more democratic way to handle it than giving the power to a single individual.
 
2014-02-11 12:38:57 PM  

modesto: No, that's wrong. Due process has fundamental meaning apart from it's application or lack of it in any place or situation. It does not mean "following the rules".


"Due process" means "the process which is due" - that's literally all it means. Which is to say, that any action taken by the government against any individual (and not merely US citizens, as a lot of people in this thread seem to think) must be within the confines of the legal protocol as defined by the lawmaking body.
 
2014-02-11 12:39:16 PM  

lawboy87: If either the FBI, OK State Police, OKC Police Dept, or OK County Sheriff's dept. had received information that Tim McVeigh had a rental truck with an explosive device in the back and was on his way to OKC to detonate the device, what DUE PROCESS would the government been required to afford him, BEFORE stopping, apprehending and/or bringing arms to bear against him?


That information would be probable cause to search the truck, of course.  Stop it, search it, find the bomb, arrest the driver, etc.  Easy.
 
2014-02-11 12:48:53 PM  
Biological Ali: "Due process" means "the process which is due" - that's literally all it means. Which is to say, that any action taken by the government against any individual (and not merely US citizens, as a lot of people in this thread seem to think) must be within the confines of the legal protocol as defined by the lawmaking body.

Nope. Let me google that for you.
 
2014-02-11 12:58:59 PM  

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

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

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

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

It's not that difficult to defend.


In the 1950s there was a congressional witch-hunt called the House Un-American Activities Committee. They got to decide who was a loyal American and who wasn't.

How did that all turn out?

As the Founding Fathers didn't trust government to make impartial decisions on its own, nor do I trust the current government to decide who is and is not a terrorist.

Is Snowden and Assange terrorists for uncovering the American version of the Stasi?
 
2014-02-11 01:25:24 PM  

Two16: 3.bp.blogspot.com


Cryptic.
 
2014-02-11 01:37:23 PM  

sprawl15: The Numbers: FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.

cool fact



i62.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-11 01:53:34 PM  
Ok for those who don't like the drone strike.  HOW do you get to someone who is in a spot where there is no way to get to them to arrest them or take them out without causing some sort of international issue, or places american military personal at to great a risk to go in after them.

How do you get someone who is in a country that anything this side of us showing up with enough manpower and firepower to invade and take over their country and give them a chose of turning the person(s) over to use with in x time or we invade, are going tell us to go pound sand?

How do you get someone who is in an area where the government has no control of that part of the country and is unwilling to get any were near the area or there is no real government in control of the whole country.

I mean can anyone image what could have happen if the seal team that got bin laden had gotten to him then had to deal with the military of that country.  It would have been even a worst issue then what happen.

And for the people who think that someone who is with a terrorist group who only goes online with some video and calls for more to fight for them or to thanks those who died in some attack is not the same as someone who dose the attacking.  Well sorry they are not.  Don't matter if you only cooked or just ran messages back and forth, or was the pr guy(s) or what ever part of the group you where doing you just as much a murder as the ones who go out and do the attack.

Just cause you are a American doesn't mean we should give you more rights when we try and deal with you. If we can get you safely great if not well when you join a group that has/is/will be attacking Americans you get what is coming to you.
 
2014-02-11 01:56:49 PM  

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

So what?

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

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

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

How would you handle it? You've already said what you wouldn't do


Well that is a silly strawman you have created. The GOP is stating that those caught on the battlefield should be tried under a military tribunal. What Obama has authorized through drone strikes is even less due process than a military tribunal.
 
2014-02-11 01:58:46 PM  

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

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


You mean the same military and intelligence agencies that took out a country with no evidence at all? I'm sure they would never do such a thing.
 
2014-02-11 02:05:17 PM  

Biological Ali: Neutralizing (either through capture or by killing) members of al-Qaeda and other organizations associated with them - particularly high-ranking members - is a public service that makes the entire world better off. Obama would be negligent if he didn't do it whenever the opportunity arose.


And the collateral damage? The additional terrorists created by these actions?  Are they not worth noting?
 
2014-02-11 02:09:22 PM  

jumac: Ok for those who don't like the drone strike.  HOW do you get to someone who is in a spot where there is no way to get to them to arrest them or take them out without causing some sort of international issue, or places american military personal at to great a risk to go in after them.


Don't get them.  When terrorism becomes a problem, maybe we can talk about it.  Right now, why even bother.  Just ignore them, stop meddling in their affairs, and stop accidentally killing their friends and family.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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