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

[Red Dawn]

Both are equally despicable.

Not really. If this was Bush doing it I might have a problem because of his history, bullshitting us to get us into wars. I just wouldn't trust him. On the other hand there are the Wingers who'd support Bush doing this but not Obama because they are convinced he's some kind of Muslim Marxist Nazi out to destroy Amerika.

 

[JS80]

Not really. If this was Bush doing it I might have a problem because of his history, bullshitting us to get us into wars. I just wouldn't trust him. On the other hand there are the Wingers who'd support Bush doing this but not Obama because they are convinced he's some kind of Muslim Marxist Nazi out to destroy Amerika.

Wingers certainly support killing terrorists they are just pointing out the hypocrisy for political gain. As would a leftist do the same the other way around. Go cry moar.

 

[cwjerome]

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?

You seem to be going off half-cocked with nothing but the article as prior knowledge and lots of assumptions.

Despite what you see in the movies, things don't work the way you think. These sort of things get filtered up from analysts to ACE Chiefs to Commanders to various other high level civilian and military leaders. Along the way things are analyzed, vetted, compared, discussed and critiqued.

You act like you're supposed to part of the MDMP and IPB. Well, you're not. Things don't happen without good reasons and your ass will not privy to the proceedings.

 

[Red Dawn]

Wingers certainly support killing terrorists they are just pointing out the hypocrisy for political gain. As would a leftist do the same the other way around. Go cry moar.

Who's crying bucket head?

 

[Narmer]

Let's kill them and let God sort them out. It's better that way.

 

[OutHouse]

its interesting how the "wingers" are saying its wrong and against the constitution and the "lefties" are all for the US Government putting a military hit out on a US Citizen.

my oh my this is interesting.

 

[werepossum]

its interesting how the "wingers" are saying its wrong and against the constitution and the "lefties" are all for the US Government putting a military hit out on a US Citizen.

my oh my this is interesting.

I'm a right winger and I say smoke his ass like a Camel (pun intended.)

 

[Lemon law]

The other joker in the deck is the patriot act which so rumor has just runs roughshod over our entire constitution. If nothing else, the previous administration excelled at keeping such issue out of court, but no who matter is Prez at the time, I would rather have SCOTUS take a long and hard look at the Patriot act ASAP.

But to stay on thread topic, my guess is that the Patriot act would allow any US citizen anywhere to be assassinated on just homeland security say so, and not even a high ranking offcial at that.

 

[Noobtastic]

This is wrong.

Remember when Stalin was killing his own citizens because they were "terrorists?"

This is a slippery slope...I don't trust BO.

 

[werepossum]

This is wrong.

Remember when Stalin was killing his own citizens because they were "terrorists?"

This is a slippery slope...I don't trust BO.

Big difference between killing your own citizens at home, where you could simply arrest and try them, and killing them when they are in a foreign country helping those who are trying to kill other Americans. As to the Messiah, if he's not killing Rush and Beck then he's not yet running amok. I would assume that since Walks-On-Water also hates America, the bar for killing American citizens (or anyone in the terrorist business) would presumably be much higher than with Bush, and as I think most people would agree this needs to be a pretty darned high bar, it's probably better for Obama than for Bush to be doing it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You seem to be going off half-cocked with nothing but the article as prior knowledge and lots of assumptions.

Despite what you see in the movies, things don't work the way you think. These sort of things get filtered up from analysts to ACE Chiefs to Commanders to various other high level civilian and military leaders. Along the way things are analyzed, vetted, compared, discussed and critiqued.

You act like you're supposed to part of the MDMP and IPB. Well, you're not. Things don't happen without good reasons and your ass will not privy to the proceedings.

So you're okay with government policing itself?

 

[Kappo]

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.

Im ok with taking them out if the evidence is good enough because they are in a foreign country. Although, I think all US citizens, naturalized or not, should be read Miranda if at all possible. Non citizens, IMO, should not be afforded those rights.

But nice argument of "Well, THEY DO IT TOOO, so it's ok". At least I see most of the conservatives on here with the spine to bust balls on either side. Libtards only care when it's someone that won't give them as much of a handout.

 

[cwjerome]

So you're okay with government policing itself?

Generally speaking, I think if proper checks and balances built into the systems... then yes. And in the end, the people will have the final say by way of voting.

If you think committees of non-governmental civilians should participate in top secret briefings, make tactical decisions in warzones and veto strategic policy... then no.

 

[CaptnKirk]

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


Or the Jonas Brothers here if they hang out with his daughters . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4

 

[NoStateofMind]

Generally speaking, I think if checks and balances built into the systems... then yes. In the end, the people will have the final say by way of voting.

How does Due Process afforded to citizens under the Constitution not fulfill this already?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You seem to be going off half-cocked with nothing but the article as prior knowledge and lots of assumptions.

Despite what you see in the movies, things don't work the way you think. These sort of things get filtered up from analysts to ACE Chiefs to Commanders to various other high level civilian and military leaders. Along the way things are analyzed, vetted, compared, discussed and critiqued.

You act like you're supposed to part of the MDMP and IPB. Well, you're not. Things don't happen without good reasons and your ass will not privy to the proceedings.

Oh really? You got proof?

Oh, I know. You mean the oversight and evidence that the CIA and government used to kidnap and torture the wrong people for the past 8 years, right? Or all the innocent people that we let go from Gitmo that we were told were guilty. That kind of oversight? Gee, I feel better already.

Or are we talking about the oversight over Wall street? Because that government oversight worked well, as you can tell.

Or how about all that intel that we were told the government had that Saddam had WMD. How did that work out? They said it was secret, but to trust them, they knew he had WMD.

I mean really, I love how you can just blindly trust the government on this, but then turn around and not believe what the government says regrading politics, economics, etc....

The only facts we KNOW are that apparently, this guys name is on list that says he can basically be assassinated.

We don't KNOW anything about ANY oversight, do you have any facts or proof about such oversight?

 

[cwjerome]

How does Due Process afforded to citizens under the Constitution not fulfill this already?

Due Process is a check.

But what does Due Process look like for a citizen engaged in warfare against the US in foreign lands? It's a good constitutional question for the courts. Look at what the Fifth Amendment says when talking about "except in cases" and "in time of war or public danger."

I'm open to the idea that targeting this cleric is constitutional and I think there's a good defense to be made.

It's like "cruel and unusual punishments" in the sense that, what is cruel and unusual? That's for the people and the courts to decide. Same with Due Process, particularly in this situation.

 

[cwjerome]

Oh really? You got proof?

Oh, I know. You mean the oversight and evidence that the CIA and government used to kidnap and torture the wrong people for the past 8 years, right? Or all the innocent people that we let go from Gitmo that we were told were guilty. That kind of oversight? Gee, I feel better already.

Or are we talking about the oversight over Wall street? Because that government oversight worked well, as you can tell.

Or how about all that intel that we were told the government had that Saddam had WMD. How did that work out? They said it was secret, but to trust them, they knew he had WMD.

I mean really, I love how you can just blindly trust the government on this, but then turn around and not believe what the government says regrading politics, economics, etc....

The only facts we KNOW are that apparently, this guys name is on list that says he can basically be assassinated.

We don't KNOW anything about ANY oversight, do you have any facts or proof about such oversight?

Proof of what, exactly?

Proof that men are infallible and never make mistakes? Proof that the government makes the best decision possible in every circumstance every day?

I do not blindly trust the government nor do I scream for proof regarding military decisions. You see, to most rational people, things are not so either-or and black and white.

Frankly, morons like you don't need to be involved in the decision making process or be presented evidence before the military should act. There are proper channels for that stuff and the day our defense department must consult with and justify every act to the public at large is the day we might as well disband the military. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think the warfighting should be left to the warfighters and the civilians that lead them.

 

[Mani]

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

I suppose there are uses for this kind of policy. Kanye West and Dane Cook come to mind.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Proof of what, exactly?

Proof that men are infallible and never make mistakes? Proof that the government makes the best decision possible in every circumstance every day?

I do not blindly trust the government nor do I scream for proof regarding military decisions. You see, to most rational people, things are not so either-or and black and white.

Frankly, morons like you don't need to be involved in the decision making process or be presented evidence before the military should act. There are proper channels for that stuff and the day our defense department must consult with and justify every act to the public at large is the day we might as well disband the military. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think the warfighting should be left to the warfighters and the civilians that lead them.

I'll spell it out for you: Do you have proof that there is any oversight? Do you have proof of checks and balances in place to prevent the wrong people from being summarliy executed?

Is that so hard?

I've pointed out several cases where the government said "we know what we are doing", or "trust us, we have secret evidence that we can't show, but we know these things are true".

And guess what, they lied. Lying about WMD isn't accident. Given that what 70% of people at Gitmo were innocent, you really thing there was oversight? Really?

Just what is acceptable in terms of innocent deaths to be wrong in your mind? Better 99 innocent people get killed, rather then one guilty man stay alive? What a great motto for you. Bravo.

So again, post some PROOF that there is real oversight about the ability to unilaterally execute a US citizen without any evidence. Put up of shut up.

If you have no proof, then yes, you are blindly accepting the governments word about this.

 

[cwjerome]

I'll spell it out for you: Do you have proof that there is any oversight? Do you have proof of checks and balances in place to prevent the wrong people from being summarliy executed?

Is that so hard?

I've pointed out several cases where the government said "we know what we are doing", or "trust us, we have secret evidence that we can't show, but we know these things are true".

And guess what, they lied. Lying about WMD isn't accident. Given that what 70% of people at Gitmo were innocent, you really thing there was oversight? Really?

Just what is acceptable in terms of innocent deaths to be wrong in your mind? Better 99 innocent people get killed, rather then one guilty man stay alive? What a great motto for you. Bravo.

So again, post some PROOF that there is real oversight about the ability to unilaterally execute a US citizen without any evidence. Put up of shut up.

If you have no proof, then yes, you are blindly accepting the governments word about this.

You just don't get it. Proof of oversight? It's basic knowledge of a chain of command that goes up to Obama, then Congressional oversight and then constitutional muster from the court. They operate on best possible evidence. We kill our own people in combat accidentally. Mistakes happen. But to claim there is no oversight is weird. Because for some strange reason, you expect to be included in the decision making process. Does some battle captain in Afghanistan have to call you up before making his decisions as well?

It is acknowledged by all that Al-Awlaki is a member of, and leader within, al-Qaida, a “terrorist organization” recognized by the U.S. attorney general, U.S. military and law enforcement. It appears that Al-Awlaki had advance notice of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, because of his position in al-Qaida. He is currently soliciting people to conduct terrorist strikes against U.S. soil, U.S. citizens and against U.S. military forces. This is all open source common knowledge. What more do you want?

I don't have a problem with questioning the government, debate, and wanting rationale behind decisions... but your holier-than-thou attitude that your personal stamp of approval (which is obviously ignorant and biased) is needed before anything happens is silly.

Let's get this in the open: Just what checks and balances do you want to see? How would you apply them in this situation?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You just don't get it. Proof of oversight? It's basic knowledge of a chain of command that goes up to Obama, then Congressional oversight and then constitutional muster from the court. They operate on best possible evidence. We kill our own people in combat accidentally. Mistakes happen. But to claim there is no oversight is weird. Because for some strange reason, you expect to be included in the decision making process. Does some battle captain in Afghanistan have to call you up before making his decisions as well?

Of please, this isn't a battlefield, don't throw strawmen in about that. This is about the President having the ability (or claiming to have) to unilaterally execute a US citizen without trial or any sort of oversight.

Because an executive order is without oversight, just in case you haven't realized that yet. Congress doesn't have diddly to do with executive orders.

So again, does the President have the ability to order the execution of a US citizen without proof? It's an easy question. Yes or no.

An executive order has no oversight, all it takes is a pen and paper. Now it is possible that he would only write such an order based on intelligence, but that is NOT required. There is nothing stopping him from doing it. Is that something you really want a President to have?

So where is the oversight? Show me where the President HAS to have proof of guilt before doing this. Show me proof where an order CAN'T be written until some safeguards have been used. PROOF.

It is acknowledged by all that Al-Awlaki is a member of, and leader within, al-Qaida, a “terrorist organization” recognized by the U.S. attorney general, U.S. military and law enforcement. It appears that Al-Awlaki had advance notice of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, because of his position in al-Qaida. He is currently soliciting people to conduct terrorist strikes against U.S. soil, U.S. citizens and against U.S. military forces. This is all open source common knowledge. What more do you want?

Again, there is proof that he was part of the 9/11 attacks? Proof that he aided/planned other terrorist attacks?

I don't think what you consider proof really is. Even your quote says "appears". That isn't proof. Random quotes from "anonymous government sources", isn't proof.

Proof is something you can take to court, and can hold up to examination. I haven't seen any of that. We were told that everyone in Gitmo had proof they were guilty, and thus didn't need trials. We now can see that the gov lied about proof, let alone guilt. So it's not like we have a good track record with truth around here.

Let's get this in the open: Just what checks and balances do you want to see? How would you apply them in this situation?

First, is this even legal? SCOTUS or someone would have to decide. That's beyond you or me. Unlimited power to execute any US citizen without oversight? Sounds un-Constitutional to me.

Second, IANAL, but at a minimum, a real trial that follows US law (no kangaroo courts like at Gitmo). A real defense lawyer, a real judge. Real proof, not just hearsay. Just like if you were accused of murder, you would get all privileges of the justice system, so should he. No exceptions.

That's off the top of my head, but would at least be a starting point.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Big difference between killing your own citizens at home, where you could simply arrest and try them, and killing them when they are in a foreign country helping those who are trying to kill other Americans.

....

This.

Anwar al-Awlaki is running for his life in Yemen supporting members of AQ, complicit with conspirators in the Cole bombing, connected to 4 9/11 hijackers, Hasan at Hood, Farouk the Under-Roos Bomber, and now Times Square.

He could voluntarily surrender and return to the US to 'argue' his innocence, or possibly be tried in abstentia.

Why give him the platform in abstentia for his 'jihad' propaganda when he has actively recruited extremists in the US with Ali Al-Timimi ?

Maybe we could paint "You have the Right to remain Silent" on the HellFire with his name on it ....





--

 

[fskimospy]

This.

Anwar al-Awlaki is running for his life in Yemen supporting members of AQ, complicit with conspirators in the Cole bombing, connected to 4 9/11 hijackers, Hasan at Hood, Farouk the Under-Roos Bomber, and now Times Square.

He could voluntarily surrender and return to the US to 'argue' his innocence, or possibly be tried in abstentia.

Why give him the platform in abstentia for his 'jihad' propaganda when he has actively recruited extremists in the US with Ali Al-Timimi ?

Maybe we could paint "You have the Right to remain Silent" on the HellFire with his name on it ....
--

Interesting idea that the executive branch of our government has the power to accuse a citizen of a crime, not in any court where these facts could be adjudicated even in absentia, just accuse them, and then unilaterally decide to execute that citizen based upon that accusation alone.

This could never possibly be abused. I promise.

 

[Siddhartha]

The other joker in the deck is the patriot act which so rumor has just runs roughshod over our entire constitution. If nothing else, the previous administration excelled at keeping such issue out of court, but no who matter is Prez at the time, I would rather have SCOTUS take a long and hard look at the Patriot act ASAP.

But to stay on thread topic, my guess is that the Patriot act would allow any US citizen anywhere to be assassinated on just homeland security say so, and not even a high ranking offcial at that.

I agree. The SCOTUS should look at this and the Patriot Act as soon as possible. This is not a left vs right issue.