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 102
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-11 12:29:54 AM
7 votes:
If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.
2014-02-11 02:31:19 AM
5 votes:

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


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

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

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.
2014-02-11 08:14:54 AM
4 votes:
Because the government would never make an unfounded accusation before screwing someone over. And absolutely everything we're told about The Global War on Terror™ is completely and 100% true.

Right?

i.imgur.com
2014-02-11 08:52:52 AM
3 votes:
Of the 776 people rounded up in Guantanamo, 600 were eventually released without charge. That's how good we are at this.

Honestly I really don't understand what we are fighting to protect anymore.
2014-02-11 07:29:30 AM
3 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

And yes. I have a problem with that.
2014-02-11 02:28:55 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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


You don't. Let the worthless POS rot in a cave or desert. There will now always be people who hate America and they will sometimes find like minded people and try to harm us. We will never be able to eliminate them. In our efforts to do so, we've alienated many people who were previously not anti-American. How many potential future terrorists do you think are created when some hillbilly with four kids gets bombed from our constantly circling, buzzing, death robots in Yemen?

You protect yourself the best you can. You recognize that terrorism is a threat [not even] on par with traffic accidents, heart disease, and domestic violent crime. You don't sell-out your core values because the mohammedans are foreign and scary.

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

Bin Laden was a feeble old shut-in. To find him, we compromised polio vaccination campaigns to take DNA samples in the area. As a result, people we try to help with vaccines in other places refuse them, and aid workers have become fair targets for militants. To me that's a BS tradeoff.

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

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


You're exactly right. We should respect life equally. But please take a look at the people we were confident enough to kidnap, torture, and detain without charge in Guantanamo. A large number ended up there because of personal grudges or faulty intelligence. The number we have been confident enough to bring charges against is seven.

We are not good at distinguishing true threats. Until a few days ago, the regulations governing resettlement into the United States were so asinine, that a refugee who, literally at gunpoint, provided food or clothing to a militant group was barred from entry due to "material support" for terrorists. Likewise for children who were kidnapped and forced to act as servants. Ours is not a government to be trusted in determining who and who is not dangerous. And whatever was special about America, that people looked up to and respected, has been sacrificed in this frenzy. The answer is not complex; you follow criminal procedure or the Geneva Conventions.
2014-02-11 10:35:23 AM
2 votes:

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 10:16:18 AM
2 votes:

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 08:52:57 AM
2 votes:
It truly is amazing how many people are entirely fine with secret courts and powerful figures executing people without showing any justification, beyond their own assertions that those people deserved it.

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

Does anyone out there actually think we're trying to win this "war on terrorism"?  Isn't it abundantly clear that this is just used to prop up the MIC and instill a secretive system so it never has to answer to the American public ever again?
2014-02-11 08:30:11 AM
2 votes:
This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
i18.photobucket.com
2014-02-11 08:25:01 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

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

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


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

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

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

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


So, perception of Republicans is more important to you than the rule of law. It's not what's right or wrong?
2014-02-11 08:23:09 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

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

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


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

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

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


I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.
2014-02-11 07:51:40 AM
2 votes:

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

As determined by whom?


Wasn't that one of the more contentious parts of the PATRIOT Act that a large number of people used to have a major problem with?
2014-02-11 07:33:15 AM
2 votes:

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


Remember that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit? Without that particular test being met, that's precisely what this sounds like to me. And, that should frighten you, IMO.
2014-02-11 07:25:29 AM
2 votes:
We can't trust our government to feed poor people but we can trust it to kill citizens based on secret information.
2014-02-11 07:19:35 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?
2014-02-11 07:16:28 AM
2 votes:
Wait a sec. About a decade ago, I remember folks saying that anyone who is actively working with terrorist organizations is an enemy combatant and should be treated as such.

Wonder what changed. Hmmm.
2014-02-11 07:08:12 AM
2 votes:
I do find it amusing that as far as some Americans are concerned, the President could drone strike 8 billion people, just as long as none of them are peripherally connected to the US in their past and therefore might technically be a citizen, which would obviously be an outrage of horrendous proportions.
2014-02-11 07:03:09 AM
2 votes:

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


The article said it was an American, not a Canadian.
2014-02-11 12:59:34 AM
2 votes:
Everything a soldier does when he's fighting is criminal. Soldiers are the worst criminals in the world. That's why it's legal to shoot them ON SIGHT.

It happens that the terrorist soldiers can't see as far as the American ones. Them's the breaks. If you don't like the rules, you can always refrain from joining the game.
2014-02-12 12:58:48 PM
1 votes:
meh, the people get what they asked for
begged for
cried for
hooray 'merica
2014-02-11 11:13:59 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: It's obviously not a complete solution, since in order to do away with either problem (whether it's cartel violence or terrorism) would require major socioeconomic evolution, but in the short-term a tough response would still be called for, even if there are tragic innocents killed in the process. If for no other reason, it would have to be done in order to limit the ability of organizations like this to cause even larger amounts of death and suffering.


First, as far as the imminent threat posed by terrorists, I don't particularly buy it, especially when referring to the threat posed to American citizens.  Terrorists have killed essentially zero people in the US relative to all of the people that ever died.  It would be akin to building some trillion dollar space shield with all kinds of negative political ramifications because some meteorite blew up an office building somewhere.

With regards to cartel violence, the somewhat obvious solution would be to legalize drugs, or at least start heading in that direction.  As long as there is money to be made off black market drugs, there will be cartel violence.

With regards to terrorism, the solution (as far as I am concerned) is primarily bringing the terrorists and people supporting the terrorists into the political fold, and giving them some sort of political agency.  People will interpret this as appeasement, but whatever.  If they never have that political agency, they will never stop being terrorists.

Now the difference in these two scenarios how their long and short term goals interact. With the drug cartel, the short term goals and long term goals can be approached simultaneously.  You can crack down on cartel violence while simultaneously changing drug policy.  With terrorism, pursuing the short term goals (at least with our current method) seems particularly at odds with bringing those people into the political fold.

It would be one thing if we were more transparent about what our long term goals with regards to the area were, but we aren't doing that.  It would be one thing if we were more transparent with the justifications on our strikes with regards to who we killed and why we killed them, but we're not.  It would be one thing if we held ourselves accountable for our mistakes, but we don't.

The policies we have in place to pursue the short term goals specifically hinder the long term goals with regards to stopping terrorism.  At least that is how I see it.
2014-02-11 11:00:00 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: Also, MattStafford, I know I've been arguing against most of what you've said, but I just wanted to acknowledge that you're at least making a principled, reasonably consistent argument and there's something to respect in that. It's especially refreshing considering the number of people here who are only upset about a single drone strike out of the hundreds that have been carried out, due to nothing more than the nationality of the guy targeted.


Thanks, and it certainly does seem like you know your stuff, so I have to give you that as well.

I do follow a lot of what you're saying, and it certainly makes sense.  If we have a target that is otherwise unobtainable, and we decide we need to eliminate him, using a drone is better than using conventional weapons.  They result in less civilian casualties and don't require boots on the ground, which results in less recruitment tools for terrorist organizations.

I still maintain that not participating in any sort of military action would be a better deterrent to terrorism than any of our current policies.  It appears that drone striking is our best option if we decide that we do need to take military action, however, I would still say it isn't our best option.  It seems like we think that we can kill all of the terrorists without addressing the underlying causes creating the terrorists, which is completely naive.  Unless you want a perpetual cycle of killing terrorists, letting the next batch show up in their wake, and then killing that group (which would not be surprising to me if certain policymakers wanted that cycle), this policy isn't going to get us anywhere.

The second problem I have with this, and I shied away from it because I don't know all of the legalese, is that we are essentially taking everything the administration says at face value.  If they kill someone, they do not have to provide evidence on how they determined that that person should be killed.  In addition, it appears there is no accountability when it is clear that the wrong person is killed.  While this may be entirely legal per whatever statutes are on the books right now, it certainly rings false when I think about what we as a country should be doing.

To make a comparison, during the Vietnam War, would we have been justified in killing Vietnamese not actively engaging in combat (nor wearing any sort of uniform), based on undocumented suspicion of aiding the Vietcong?  The difference between an American GI in Vietnam executing an (at the time) non combatant without any sort of due process, but with suspicion of aiding the Vietcong (suspicion that never needs to shown or backed up) and our administration executing an (at the time) non combatant without any sort of due process, but with suspicion of aiding Al Qaeda (suspicion that never needs to be shown or backed up) is what?  Would we be fine with an American soldier executing people based on suspicion with no accountability or need to show evidence?  Should we be fine with the administration executing people based on suspicion with no accountability or need to show evidence?  Is it simply that we trust Obama more to get it right?
2014-02-11 03:59:52 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: See pages 23 and 24. People have gone out of their way to look for any evidence of recruitment benefits that terrorist groups are supposedly gaining as a result of drone strikes, and they've come up short. Meanwhile, there is a fair bit to indicate that these groups are being significantly damaged, at least in the short run, by said strikes.

I understand where you're coming from. I myself used to believe that military strikes "created terrorists", because it just seemed like something that sounded true. But there's really no actual evidence for it.


FTA:  "A local analyst who has extensively researched security and governance in FATA notes that 
while anti-drone rhetoric does draw some converts, 'the loss of a Baitullah Mehsud 
or a Qari Hussain is much more damaging than the recruitment of a few dozen foot 
soldiers'."

So a single unnamed analyst (the footnote simply says "interview") is your source for this?  Should I accept that as more authoritative than a Stanford/NYU study?   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-c o unterproductive-report

In addition, that paper did not particularly address the claim regarding the populations acceptance of terrorist organizations.  Terrorist organizations draw their strength from the local population.  They buy food and supplies from them, and most importantly hide among them.  A person with a family member recently killed by a drone strike might not join up, but would certainly be more amenable to selling goods to an organization, or keeping mum if asked about them.

Finally, that statement sounds an awfully lot like the strategies behind anti drug policies.  Chopping the head off will kill the beast, regardless of how many new legs it grows.  But there will always be the next head that emerges.  Even if you kill a Qari Hussain, you have done nothing to address the underlying causes that created that Qari Hussain, or that will create the next Qari Hussain.  You can bust a drug kingpin, but you aren't going to stop the drug trade in that city.
2014-02-11 03:16:37 PM
1 votes:

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

And the collateral damage? The additional terrorists created by these actions?  Are they not worth noting?

The idea that additional terrorists are "created" whenever existing terrorists are killed is more or less an urban myth - something that gets repeated without any real evidence to back it up. Even in the most extreme instances - attacks that go horribly wrong and kill only civilians, for instance - it isn't clear whether there's any substantial benefit for terrorists in terms of picking up new recruits. Terrorist recruitment is more driven by the long-standing socioeconomic conditions of the areas they operate in, as opposed to the by-product of military actions taken against them.

You can understand why this would be by thinking of the reverse - if it were true that attacks on terrorists created additional terrorists, it would also be true that attacks by terrorists - which kill far, far more people than the other way around - would generate recruits for whichever armies are fighting them (the Afghan and Pakistani militaries, for instance), but that doesn't happen in any significant numbers either. At the end of the day, joining a military (or quasi-military) force is a decision that not many people make to begin with, and those that do tend to do so for occupational reasons more than anything else.


That's a great point... we didn't see an increase at all in people joining the US military forces after 9/11, did we?
2014-02-11 12:34:25 PM
1 votes:

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 11:24:40 AM
1 votes:

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 11:20:28 AM
1 votes:

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 11:11:13 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:35 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:08 AM
1 votes:

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 10:50:25 AM
1 votes:

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 10:39:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:53 AM
1 votes:

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 10:33:12 AM
1 votes:

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 10:26:11 AM
1 votes:

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 10:19:40 AM
1 votes:

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 10:18:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:15:34 AM
1 votes:

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 10:09:15 AM
1 votes:

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 10:08:37 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:03:45 AM
1 votes:

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 09:54:24 AM
1 votes:
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 09:53:30 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:36 AM
1 votes:

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

Thanks, Dubya! You opened the door that Obama stepped on through.
2014-02-11 09:30:20 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I'm arguing from a legal standpoint that extrajudicial summary executions are illegal, especially where civilians are getting blown up and you think 17 people getting blown up at a wedding is an "experiment." I guess Mengele did experiments, too, in a purely technical sense.
2014-02-11 09:28:29 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Che Guevara murdered fewer people than Stalin did, but that doesn't make him a good person.
2014-02-11 09:21:47 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


A video can't hurt you. If he actually takes up arms and does more to tangibly further it to the point where there is probability of actual harm, then take appropriate action. I don't think we should blow people up for posting videos, no matter how insidious.
2014-02-11 09:12:40 AM
1 votes:

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

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

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

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

Nothing?

WE HOLD A TRIAL BECAUSE WE ARE A CIVILIZED COUNTRY DUMBASS


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

Thanks for the all caps and bolded response. Now I know you mean business.
2014-02-11 09:12:32 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You seem to be doing quite a bit of work to avoid holding Obama accountable for his policies.
2014-02-11 09:12:25 AM
1 votes:
If it's ok for us to send in a missile and bomb a suspect because it's too hard to go get him, is it ok for another country to do the same thing here in the US if they find it too hard? Is the collateral damGe just as tolerable as we find it when an innocent wedding party is obliterated?
2014-02-11 09:11:34 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


The point is you don't use Bush to set the bar on how Obama is judged, even if it makes you feel better. When the next Republican President that comes along, do they get a pass on 'collateral damage' up to the same number as Obama, and then it becomes unacceptable to you?
2014-02-11 09:09:50 AM
1 votes:

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


The constitution makes no reference to any geographical limitations wrt to the restrictions it places on the actions of the government. At least not in the Bill of Rights.
2014-02-11 09:07:48 AM
1 votes:

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

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

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

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

Nothing?


WE HOLD A TRIAL BECAUSE WE ARE A CIVILIZED COUNTRY DUMBASS
2014-02-11 09:05:38 AM
1 votes:

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

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


That would allow Pakistan to handle it in a way that Pakistan wants to handle it, drop a bomb on their own nation, it's not us invading their sovereignty and causing diplomatic problems on a global scale.
2014-02-11 09:03:06 AM
1 votes:

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

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


So fabricated evidence is cool then?
2014-02-11 08:56:52 AM
1 votes:

Nabb1: war crimes


[chandlerbingvoice]

Could you be any more melodramatic?

[/chandlerbingvoice]
2014-02-11 08:55:52 AM
1 votes:

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

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

The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.

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

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


Constitutionality is determined by the Constitution. What rules the government follows is determined by the courts, and increasingly by pulling them out of the President's anus.
2014-02-11 08:53:42 AM
1 votes:

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

So what?

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


Are you insinuating that I am against trying them here? I'm not. Maybe you ought to just admit you support war crimes and subversion of the rule of law and stop blaming others?
2014-02-11 08:53:05 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Those two are a lot more similar than either is to killing zero.
2014-02-11 08:52:21 AM
1 votes:
How can anyone have a issue with this.  the story I read on this stated this is for those who are

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

and or

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

Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.
2014-02-11 08:52:08 AM
1 votes:

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

So what?

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


I think his point is, who gives a damn what Republicans think?
2014-02-11 08:50:59 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.
2014-02-11 08:45:53 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

The 9/11 hijackers came from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why did we invade Iraq? They had proper IDs on them. Why does the TSA enforce ID checks when they're not needed?
2014-02-11 08:45:41 AM
1 votes:

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

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


The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.
2014-02-11 08:44:39 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.
2014-02-11 08:43:19 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

It is not illegal to shoot somebody pointing a gun at the gas station clerk. It is illegal to shoot somebody making a plan to rob the gas station.
2014-02-11 08:39:08 AM
1 votes:
Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.
2014-02-11 08:35:24 AM
1 votes:

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


Where's it written in the Constitution that it applies only when the US citizen is on US soil? The document is a declaration of freedoms of a US citizen in relation to their government's authority. Leaving the US does not invalidate or cancel those protections. You still have freedom of speech against the US government no matter where you happen to be on or around this planet.
2014-02-11 08:29:16 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Well, in this age of hyperpartisanship, I'm afraid you'll find some people would rather let a war crime continue rather than be the party to admit the policy is wrong and pay for it politically.
2014-02-11 08:26:32 AM
1 votes:
Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

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

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.
2014-02-11 08:25:07 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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

Similar to the example given up thread of the rape case in Okinawa... I don't see how being arrested by the government of Japan could consitute any violation of due process as defined by the US Constitution just because the military declined to arrest and try them under UCMJ.  Doesn't make sense.
2014-02-11 08:22:06 AM
1 votes:

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


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

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

However none of them were done by the federal government, the administration, or the military--which is what we're really discussing now.  I think that the idea that the CIA's tactics against terrorists in foreign countries will somehow trickle down and encourage local police forces to use the same tactics is a bit tenuous.  Unlike Afghanistan, we do have easy ways to track down and capture suspects here, and we are supposed to still have due process.
2014-02-11 08:21:36 AM
1 votes:

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

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



The topic is an action by the US government against a US citizen, not a foreign government against a visiting US citizen. Try to keep up.
2014-02-11 08:20:27 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.
2014-02-11 08:18:30 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

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

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


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


He was the first American specifically targeted with a drone. He was not killed on a "battlefield". I also wanted to note the Orwellian twist that the American that inspired terrorism was droned and the American that committed the terrorism was charged with work place violence.
2014-02-11 08:18:17 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

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

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


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

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


He does not care. Those people deserve it if Obama decides someone needed to die. Obama's will is all that matters to him. He was probably shouting Bush and Cheney should have stood before the Hague a few years ago, but he'll defend a program Amnesty International has branded a "war crime" until the cows come home now.
2014-02-11 08:16:06 AM
1 votes:
Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.
2014-02-11 08:12:43 AM
1 votes:

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


That's really not an accurate statement of the law, and I'm somewhat surprised to see you post that. The Bill of Rights and due process requirements are restrictions on the power of the state and one need not be within US borders for them to apply.
2014-02-11 08:02:45 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

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


Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.
2014-02-11 07:56:56 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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



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

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

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.
2014-02-11 07:54:32 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I would think most Americans wouldn't really want this can of worms opened up any farther.
2014-02-11 07:48:11 AM
1 votes:

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


As determined by whom?
2014-02-11 07:41:47 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


No president would ever say anything like that!

"I'm the commander, see. I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." - Bush
2014-02-11 07:36:32 AM
1 votes:
Dedmon:
It actually does. What do you think "due process of law" means, anyway? It's never so simple as a one line quote. What the president is doing is within the powers of his office, powers that were allocated by the constitution and by various acts of congress over the centuries. The war powers of the president should be more limited,I agree. However, the "due process" doesn't have to be a court, by law. It could be any "due process" as interpreted by the POTUS and SCOTUS, and thus far, it's been deemed appropriate to use intelligence agencies to locate and eliminate any person duly determined to be at war with America or our allies.

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


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

If we are now going to be in the business of regularly assassinating folks, we should come up with a proper due process, not this ad hoc one. I'm not a big fan of secret courts, but maybe that will have to be the way to go. It wouldn't be perfect, but at least there might be a properly independent institutional check on the executive branch.
2014-02-11 07:32:18 AM
1 votes:
Meh, you were warned.
2014-02-11 07:31:19 AM
1 votes:
So don't target the "citizen". Target the terrorist(s) he is standing next to. Problem solved.

Personally if he's one of those idiots making videos for Al qaeda, he should be considered a citizen of the US.
2014-02-11 07:31:08 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


www.emergingmarketsillustrated.com
2014-02-11 07:28:46 AM
1 votes:

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

Wonder what changed. Hmmm.


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

/Its what we elected him to do.
2014-02-11 07:27:19 AM
1 votes:

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

The police coordinate raids with the intention of executing suspects?


sometimes...
2014-02-11 07:24:11 AM
1 votes:

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


You do, when you decide to move to Yemen and live in an al Qaeda cell.
What, do you think the military would just start targeting American tourists in foreign countries for the hell of it?
2014-02-11 07:23:16 AM
1 votes:

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


The police coordinate raids with the intention of executing suspects?
2014-02-11 07:21:40 AM
1 votes:
We get it, he's black.
2014-02-11 07:20:24 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

TLDR: The due process is the president getting together with the intelligence agencies, looking over the evidence, and determining if another human should die on the other side of the world, all within the law.
2014-02-11 07:19:26 AM
1 votes:

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


In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?
2014-02-11 07:19:13 AM
1 votes:

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


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

And dammit, I can't find that story anywhere.
2014-02-11 07:13:57 AM
1 votes:
FTA: But Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, alluded to the case last week during a public hearing on security threats, accusing the administration of adopting cumbersome counterterrorism policies that have made Americans more vulnerable to attack.

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

They're playing Whack-An-Obama.

www.sadlyno.com
2014-02-11 07:13:42 AM
1 votes:
But, but we should BRING THEM BACK FOR TRIAL!

Think through the logistics for just a moment...
2014-02-11 07:12:26 AM
1 votes:

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

Accused

of.
2014-02-11 12:25:56 AM
1 votes:
al-Qaeda terrorist! why didn't we think of this before?

static-secure.guim.co.uk
 
Displayed 102 of 102 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report