Obama admin authorizes the CIA to kill a U.S. citizen overseas via drone

[jackschmittusa]

"Enemy combatant" is truly a catchall, bullshit term anyway.

Using it to circumvent the Constitution is way out of line.

 

[JTsyo]

Just awful.

totally violates the constitution and due process.

unless someone is a named member of al-qaeda, these powers will likely be abused by the CIA.

look in afghanistan. We are targeting TALIBAN DRUGLORDS, not terrorists. bulllshiitt!!!

Where do you think the money from the drug trafficking goes?

 

[werepossum]

The US government does not do assassinations.

If someone is deemed an enemy combatant, ie, they are at war with the US, I don't think citizenship should be some get out of jail free card. Using a drone is one option out of many courses of action, and depending on the circumstances of the situation, it may be the best option.

I do not think we avoid killing enemies of the state out of fear of martyrdom... and as far as dangerous precedents, you are right. It might be very dangerous to inject yourself into terrorism overseas.

A lot of debate at the right levels should occur and oversight/evidence must be very high... but at first glance I don't see the need to get hysterical.

This. The man is apparently recruiting for the opposition. That makes him a legitimate target in my mind. And I see no overt hypocrisy. While I don't think what was done under Bush was torture, even if you do believe it it is acceptable in a war to kill but not to torture. Either way I think this is a morally consistent policy. This is a good thing.

 

[nick1985]

That will never happen because that hypocrite does not have a single ounce of integrity. If that libtard does actually post, it'll be "but that traitor Bush!!!!!!!!"

an his criminal cabal!!!!!!

 

[irishScott]

Looking more and more like Rome every day

You know, one of the main factors in the fall of the Roman Empire was a loss in the identity of "Roman". This was primarily due to them freely granting citizenship to various "barbarians" on their borders without assimilation. Go Arizona go, and New York can fuck itself.

/hijack

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm sure if they could capture him with no collateral damage they would. Aside from that, he's a powerful weapon for our enemy and it's necessary to eliminate that weapon by any means necessary.

This isn't a new precedent is it? Hasn't it happened before in wars we've been in?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

an his criminal cabal!!!!!!

...of war criminals, profiteers, and general incompetents!!!111!!!!1!!!

 

[cliftonite]

He seems to be absent lately. Tis a mystery!

That will never happen because that hypocrite does not have a single ounce of integrity. If that libtard does actually post, it'll be "but that traitor Bush!!!!!!!!"

So how would you deal with a man in a country which may not extradite him, who is planning attacks against the US, and is working with Al Qeada? Wage war with Yemen, grab him, and put him on trial? Or let him continue his attacks?

 

[cliftonite]

I'm sure if they could capture him with no collateral damage they would. Aside from that, he's a powerful weapon for our enemy and it's necessary to eliminate that weapon by any means necessary.

This isn't a new precedent is it? Hasn't it happened before in wars we've been in?

Yes the article points out that German Americans who fought with the Nazis were not afforded a trial.

 

[cwjerome]

"Enemy combatant" is truly a catchall, bullshit term anyway.

Using it to circumvent the Constitution is way out of line.

I just used the term for lack of a better word and it has nothing to do with going around the Constitution. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter. If a citizen is in hostile territory overseas engaged in war against the US, I see no problem with putting a Hellfire on target.

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent the question becomes, targeting a US citizen individually might be unconstitutional and a denial of due process, but on the battlefield, if he is running around with our "enemies", and happens to get killed along with them, its more a case of tough luck smuck.

But there are other questions of international law, and this case, if I have it right, Yemini law. If the legitimately constituted government goes to Uncle Sam, and say, "Sammy, please help me clean out these terrorists in our territory", it would be perfectly legitimate for the USA to do so, but IMHO, unless the USA is willing to declare war against an entire country, operating inside Yemen would be illegal under international law regardless of the citizenship of the various targeted terrorists. But if there is no legitimately constituted government in Yemen, the say might default to the UN.

 

[xj0hnx]

To some extent the question becomes, targeting a US citizen individually might be unconstitutional and a denial of due process, but on the battlefield, if he is running around with our "enemies", and happens to get killed along with them, its more a case of tough luck smuck.

Exactly, in the course of a battle is great, kill them all fine. It's the precedent of the US government specifically targeting a US citizen for execution under the guise of "terrorist" that needs to be looked at.

 

[SAWYER]

...of war criminals, profiteers, and general incompetents!!!111!!!!1!!!

Where are all those smilies he used to use? lol, too funny. There would be about a dozen sad faces, roses and angry faces, I never see that stuff anymore

 

[Mani]

Bush was criticized for this, and so should Obama. I hope there's more than what was presented in the article, because if there isn't, we just assassinated a U.S. citizen on what amounted to "he was preaching bad shit and very possibly inciting violence".

 

[xj0hnx]

Bush was criticized for this, and so should Obama. I hope there's more than what was presented in the article, because if there isn't, we just assassinated a U.S. citizen on what amounted to "he was preaching bad shit and very possibly inciting violence".

Wait a minute, now we can hit those douches in New York, and Westboro too!!!! Win, Win!!!

 

[Jaskalas]

These questions point out a very simple fact. We are ill prepared to deal with terrorism and need to adjust ourselves accordingly.

If there needs to be some legal process to deciding who we target then let us discuss how best to do this.

 

[tk149]

Government can be trusted to never ever abuse this power. Or to ever be wrong. Ever.

Haven't seen Harvey around lately. Vacation?

 

[nick1985]

Where are all those smilies he used to use? lol, too funny. There would be about a dozen sad faces, roses and angry faces, I never see that stuff anymore

P&N just isnt the same

 

[Siddhartha]

I would to see the US Supreme Court look at this.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

A lot of debate at the right levels should occur and oversight/evidence must be very high... but at first glance I don't see the need to get hysterical.

So where is this "oversight/evidence"?

Just because someone says it's true, doesn't mean it is true. Where is the proof? Where is the oversight? Where is an actual documented process with appropriate checks and balances, to make sure we don't start killing (more) innocent people?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

P&N just isnt the same

It seems the outrage icons aren't as good on VB. However, I tried. Does this make you guys feel better?

:twisted::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:D::'(!!11!!!!!!1!!!!!

 

[werepossum]

Government can be trusted to never ever abuse this power. Or to ever be wrong. Ever.

Haven't seen Harvey around lately. Vacation?

Predator drone?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Government can be trusted to never ever abuse this power. Or to ever be wrong. Ever.

Haven't seen Harvey around lately. Vacation?

I have noticed a large lack of participation by the usual left-leaning suspects in a variety of threads where you'd think they would normally participate in. I mean, after all, if the title of this thread were "Bush admin authorizes the CIA to kill a US citizen overseas via drone," you can bet we'd be flooded with macros, various icons, and the normal anti-Bush rhetoric. But instead, since it is Obama (who also has continued/supported many Bush policies, such as the Patriot Act and detention of 'enemy combatants'), I guess they feel it is better to remain quiet rather than being logically consistent and lambasting him like they did Bush. At best, we get a mild rebuke from them; at worst, they just remain silent.

 

[Red Dawn]

I have noticed a large lack of participation by the usual left-leaning suspects in a variety of threads where you'd think they would normally participate in. I mean, after all, if the title of this thread were "Bush admin authorizes the CIA to kill a US citizen overseas via drone," you can bet we'd be flooded with macros, various icons, and the normal anti-Bush rhetoric. But instead, since it is Obama (who also has continued/supported many Bush policies, such as the Patriot Act and detention of 'enemy combatants'), I guess they feel it is better to remain quiet rather than being logically consistent and lambasting him like they did Bush. At best, we get a mild rebuke from them; at worst, they just remain silent.

And I've notice Wingers who would have favored this under Bush complaining about it because it's the Obama Administration who's authorizing it. Of course under Bush we probably wouldn't have know about it until after the fact when someone blew the whistle on them.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

And I've notice Wingers who would have favored this under Bush complaining about it because it's the Obama Administration who's authorizing it. Of course under Bush we probably wouldn't have know about it until after the fact when someone blew the whistle on them.

Both are equally despicable.