Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

[rudeguy]

It would also be harder to go after the guy if it's blabbed all over the media that we're interested in an American where we don't have foreign presence.

As Robert Gates said about the people that keep leaking high-level national-security stuff, "Shut the fuck up".

There's the good old liberal stance:

If we can deny it, its ok to do. Who cares about things like the Constitution? Who cares about things God given rights? Who cares?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I want the government to at least show evidence of why he needs to die.

It shouldn't be that hard to do right?

Liberals are attacking the constitution a lot these days. What is up with that?

 

[Brainonska511]

There's the good old liberal stance:

If we can deny it, its ok to do. Who cares about things like the Constitution? Who cares about things God given rights? Who cares?

Yep. Robert Gates, that awful awful liberal Secretary of Defense from the last 2 years W's presidency...

It's not a matter of denying that these decisions are playing out. There are just decisions that should play out on a need-to-know basis, not in the public sphere (I could see the argument happening publicly in a hypothetical scenario, it just shouldn't be as tangible as it is happening here).

I also think you have an unreasonable view of the Constitution. An American citizenship is not a free pass to go to another country and plan and execute acts of terror. We can't exactly go in and arrest the guy. And trying him in absentia doesn't seem to jive with the Constitution either...

 

[Texashiker]

So you're happy to put soldiers unnecessarily in harms way? Why do you hate Americans so much?

They volunteered, so I have no problem with using soldiers to uphold the Constitution.

Isn't that part of their job? To uphold and protect the Constitution.

 

[rudeguy]

Yep. Robert Gates, that awful awful liberal Secretary of Defense from the last 2 years W's presidency...

It's not a matter of denying that these decisions are playing out. There are just decisions that should play out on a need-to-know basis, not in the public sphere (I could see the argument happening publicly in a hypothetical scenario, it just shouldn't be as tangible as it is happening here).

I also think you have an unreasonable view of the Constitution. An American citizenship is not a free pass to go to another country and plan and execute acts of terror. We can't exactly go in and arrest the guy. And trying him in absentia doesn't seem to jive with the Constitution either...

Unreasonable view? Because I read it and believe in it?

Its the same piece of paper that keeps the government from killing you when you disagree with them.

 

[Brainonska511]

Unreasonable view? Because I read it and believe in it?

Its the same piece of paper that keeps the government from killing you when you disagree with them.

This isn't a simple 'disagreement' with the government. We're talking about someone taking refuge in a foreign country (this is a key detail), where we really have no power to do anything, to actively plan and execute attacks against the United States and its allies (either here, or abroad).

Anything we do, without the permission of the host country, to apprehend this individual, is potentially an act of war. In that scope, sending a Hellfire missile against this guy, should he prove to actually be a terrorist, is probably a little less aggressive than sending troops into harms way.

If we sent troops in to 'arrest' the guy, what then? What happens when he fights back? We'll have dead people on the ground. What happens when the host country's military responds trapping our soldiers? That's a diplomatic headache, to put it mildly. Do they shoot their way out? Surrender to be tried and imprisoned? Do we let the host country try to arrest and extradite? We've seen how well that works with Pakistan - their intelligence service leaks like a sieve, warning the targets before troops get into position...

What do you propose to stop this individual?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I want the government to at least show evidence of why he needs to die.

It shouldn't be that hard to do right?

Liberals are attacking the constitution a lot these days. What is up with that?

Show evidence to whom? You? Again there are processes where evidence will be gathered and evaluated. Are you suggesting everything be made public first? That'd be effective.

 

[Texashiker]

Show evidence to whom?

To a jury of the accused peers, just as his rights ensure him the right to.

The government does not have the right to determine guilt. That is the job of the jury.

 

[rudeguy]

This isn't a simple 'disagreement' with the government. We're talking about someone taking refuge in a foreign country (this is a key detail), where we really have no power to do anything, to actively plan and execute attacks against the United States and its allies (either here, or abroad).

Anything we do, without the permission of the host country, to apprehend this individual, is potentially an act of war. In that scope, sending a Hellfire missile against this guy, should he prove to actually be a terrorist, is probably a little less aggressive than sending troops into harms way.

If we sent troops in to 'arrest' the guy, what then? What happens when he fights back? We'll have dead people on the ground. What happens when the host country's military responds trapping our soldiers? That's a diplomatic headache, to put it mildly. Do they shoot their way out? Surrender to be tried and imprisoned? Do we let the host country try to arrest and extradite? We've seen how well that works with Pakistan - their intelligence service leaks like a sieve, warning the targets before troops get into position...

What do you propose to stop this individual?

The reason for it makes no difference. The government cannot execute its own citizens without due process. Its black and white. If he committed a crime, he gets indicted and tried. If there really is a need, then the Constitution needs to be amended. That is how our government works. Not by a tyrannical leader deciding whether a citizen lives or dies.

If you are ok with voiding the Constitution to avoid "a diplomatic headache", then you are already lost.

 

[kage69]

Why do people bring up hostage situations as analogy for these operations?

Because they are examples of time sensitive life and death situations where law enforcement doesn't have the ability to place due process as a higher priority than the lives of victims and responders. Pretty straight forward really. The military often must use deadly force to end a situation, not because they want to, but because there are some crazy mofos out there and violent religious extremists often have the same regard for negotiation as drug-addled psychopaths or mentally unstable gunmen. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 incidents in the last few years where LEOs were forced to open fire due to someone being about kill a victim or fellow officer. No due process involved there, and sure enough I've never heard a single person ask "Well what about the perp's rights?" Does Obama need to be involved for you guys to give a shit? Where is the outrage? This happening within our borders is OK enough that no one seems to care, but happening in a AQ stronghold on the other side of the world makes it insidious somehow? Puh lease.

They are not the same at all. The analogy for a SWAT hostage situation is an active fire fight with US forces.

Don't glue yourself to my first example. It is by no means the only one that can apply, and it will help you avoid making generalizations like that. Hostages can be involved in active firefights, or not, there really is no formula here that is followed by criminals so don't try and present one. I used SWAT as it's an example most people are familiar with. There are a multitude of other parties and scenarios that can be used to illustrate my point, do you need another?

Not many people are going to defend these people being killed during a firefight.

Who is asking for them to be defended? I'm not even looking for someone to condemn it. All I want is for people to stop acting self-righteous and gullible and be a little consistent on this issue. In some ways this reminds me of when Trayvon Martin's thug check bounced. The death of a black teen is only outrageous and news worthy when it's taken (justifiably too) by a white person. Black teens being killed all the time by other black teens? Meh. One attacks a white guy and gets shot in self defense? Notify Sharpton!
See where I'm going with this?

And afaik no court has deemed that a violation of ones due process. And rightfull so.

..and yet, in the situations I submitted due process is not observed. Seems like some people get it. And?

I ask you. Why are you ok with the govt writing laws that allow it to murder American citizens without a trial?

Because it's a necessary, last resort evil required by the realities of modern war, the nature of time, the value of life, and it's actually a step up towards more accountability compared to what has been done in the past. Should we go back to private hit squads that don't answer to anyone except one or two politicians? You prefer the mushroom approach, where you are kept in the dark and fed shit? Not me.
I believe that once you declare America your enemy, kill Americans, and do everything you can to encourage and assist America's enemies then you have effectively renounced your citizenship and shouldn't expect the rights and protections it confers. Capture and trial is still preferable of course, but if an attempt at rendition costs us the lives of other Americans I don't see the point.

So I ask you. Why do law abiding, non-crazy Americans have to die in order for those who hate America to enjoy the rights they've already repudiated? How many lives of pilots, entry team members or spooks does it take to equal the rights of a person who works for AQ?

The right of law abiding citizens to live outweighs the right of terrorists to use protections they've refused by choice and action. I don't think I can break it down further than that.

 

[Texashiker]

I believe that once you declare America your enemy, kill Americans, and do everything you can to encourage and assist America's enemies then you have effectively renounced your citizenship and shouldn't expect the rights and protections it confers. Capture and trial is still preferable of course, but if an attempt at rendition costs us the lives of other Americans I don't see the point.

What you believe does not count for squat.

The Constitution defines what the government can and can not do, and what rights the citizen has.

We are a nation of laws, and our citizens have rights. Rights which the government can not take away.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the technology of drones & electronic eavesdropping combined with the hysteria of the WoT have created some moral dilemmas. Those are made more difficult by the current state of politics.

It all stems from framing it in terms of War & militarization of anti-terrorist efforts. War lets you do things differently than in peacetime, both at home & abroad. It's a different headset.

So we have to decide if it's war or peace. If it's War, then the rules of peace do not apply & vice-versa, as well. Can't have it both ways, at least not for long.

Right, wrong or indifferent, so long as it's defined as war then the CinC has to use the rules of War. Otherwise, his political opponents will eat him alive should a major terrorist event occur. Contrarily, if it's defined as a global police effort, then the rules of peace apply and protection will likely be somewhat less. There are yet basically lawless ungoverned regions in this world regardless of what we see on a map.

I expect that the drone war will cease or be greatly diminished once troops are out of Afghanistan. Which doesn't mean that the deliberate hysteria of 9/11 will be gone completely. It may never be. We still have Gitmo, domestic surveillance, excessive domestic security & militarized police issues to deal with.

I've objected to them all along, still do. OTOH, I think it's pretty shameful for partisans to condemn Obama for following policy that was shamelessly and very effectively fear mongered into existence by his predecessor. All too many Americans are still subject to that fear & will accept nothing less than perfection of protection from whoever is running the show.

Only when we're prepared to renounce the WoT the same way that we renounced McCarthyism will we truly put this behind us.

 

[kage69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



The Constitution is not a piece of paper you regard or disregard at will.

Actually, in 2004 the RNC determined that people's free speech was in fact entirely subject to it's election year events. The White House decided, at will, that the rights of free speech and assembly for people that didn't agree with the Cheney-Rove-Bush triumvirate were inconvenient.

Wearing the wrong political shirt? See ya! Want to hold a sign critical of the current admin? Sorry, you'll have to take that to the 'free speech zone' a quarter mile that way...

 

[WHAMPOM]

How did we get Saddam?

Saddam got a trial and he was not a US citizen.

Nazis from world war II received a trial.

Even Jeffrey Dahmer received a trial.

Are you for the prisoners held in Guantanamo getting a fair trial? Or any trial?
Just how far does your hypocrisy go?
Nazis got a trial, so how about Hamas the goat herder sitting there for twelve years on the word of three guys just out to collect a reward?
Or are you one of those too scared to bring the abuses of a former President to light?

 

[Texashiker]

Actually, in 2004 the RNC determined that people's free speech was in fact entirely subject to it's election year events. The White House decided, at will, that the rights of free speech and assembly for people that didn't agree with the Cheney-Rove-Bush triumvirate were inconvenient.

There is a difference in saying you can not assemble here, and saying we are going to kill you if you disagree with us.

Are you for the prisoners held in Guatanamo getting a fair trial?

Of course I want to see them get a fair trial.

 

[kage69]

What you believe does not count for squat.

False. Logic and common sense are actually good currency in debate. Sorry to hear you're broke btw.

The Constitution defines what the government can and can not do, and what rights the citizen has.

And again, the lack of consistency from your crowd makes that an entirely empty statement. You guys pick and choose what is important based on the needs at the time, just like with those silly bibles. The Constitution applies to our country, did you miss the part about how these scenarios occur on different continents, often in locales extremely hostile to any US presence?

We are a nation of laws, and our citizens have rights. Rights which the government can not take away.

The rights weren't taken away, they were discarded. And the government does indeed limit and remove rights, but that's a topic for a different thread. This turn to generic statements with no acknowledgement of the real world problems involved with your idealistic view tells me you're about done here. Or rather, I'm done with you.

 

[Texashiker]

And the government does indeed limit and remove rights,

Not without due process.

 

[kage69]

There is a difference in saying you can not assemble here, and saying we are going to kill you if you disagree with us.

Looks like I nailed it.


I'm not sure which is more amusing; your sudden backpedal on rights or this attempt to revise the drone issue into a matter of some poor misunderstand terrorist not agreeing with Obama. Yeah, not car bombings, or shooting people, or recruiting suicide bombers, nope. We are pressing our attack posture with drones because terrorists don't agree with us. Brilliant.

Do you write for Fox and Friends or something? That is Steve Doocy level debate fail right there, yikes.

 

[Texashiker]

Yeah, not car bombings, or shooting people, or recruiting suicide bombers, nope.

Why aren't we killing gang members and drug dealers in mass?

I am pretty sure some drug lord in Columbia kills more people that some terrorist who talks.

If the government wanted to kill the real terrorist, why not kill some of those drug smugglers in mexico?

 

[schmuckley]

Speaking of foreign drug lords..Whatever happened to Noriega?

 

[rudeguy]

Speaking of foreign drug lords..Whatever happened to Noriega?

back in Panama last I knew.

 

[Scotteq]

Speaking of foreign drug lords..Whatever happened to Noriega?

He was convicted, served his time in the US. Then was extradited back to Panama to serve the sentence given him by Panama.

 

[Genx87]

Because they are examples of time sensitive life and death situations where law enforcement doesn't have the ability to place due process as a higher priority than the lives of victims and responders. Pretty straight forward really. The military often must use deadly force to end a situation, not because they want to, but because there are some crazy mofos out there and violent religious extremists often have the same regard for negotiation as drug-addled psychopaths or mentally unstable gunmen. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 incidents in the last few years where LEOs were forced to open fire due to someone being about kill a victim or fellow officer. No due process involved there, and sure enough I've never heard a single person ask "Well what about the perp's rights?" Does Obama need to be involved for you guys to give a shit? Where is the outrage? This happening within our borders is OK enough that no one seems to care, but happening in a AQ stronghold on the other side of the world makes it insidious somehow? Puh lease.

Here is a clue. If we plan a drone strike in advance. It isnt time sensitive nor life or death. And neither were the last two killings. These people are not holding anybody hostage nor pulling a trigger. Your analogy is horrible.

Don't glue yourself to my first example. It is by no means the only one that can apply, and it will help you avoid making generalizations like that. Hostages can be involved in active firefights, or not, there really is no formula here that is followed by criminals so don't try and present one. I used SWAT as it's an example most people are familiar with. There are a multitude of other parties and scenarios that can be used to illustrate my point, do you need another?

A terrible analogy is terrible.

Who is asking for them to be defended? I'm not even looking for someone to condemn it. All I want is for people to stop acting self-righteous and gullible and be a little consistent on this issue. In some ways this reminds me of when Trayvon Martin's thug check bounced. The death of a black teen is only outrageous and news worthy when it's taken (justifiably too) by a white person. Black teens being killed all the time by other black teens? Meh. One attacks a white guy and gets shot in self defense? Notify Sharpton!
See where I'm going with this?

I have been very consistent on this topic. And dont preach about gullible when you are defending the practice of killing US citizens without trial when all the govt can tell you as evidence is "trust us". It requires an extreme case of gullibility to sit there and just accept it, or worse defend it.

Because it's a necessary, last resort evil required by the realities of modern war, the nature of time, the value of life, and it's actually a step up towards more accountability compared to what has been done in the past. Should we go back to private hit squads that don't answer to anyone except one or two politicians? You prefer the mushroom approach, where you are kept in the dark and fed shit? Not me.
I believe that once you declare America your enemy, kill Americans, and do everything you can to encourage and assist America's enemies then you have effectively renounced your citizenship and shouldn't expect the rights and protections it confers. Capture and trial is still preferable of course, but if an attempt at rendition costs us the lives of other Americans I don't see the point.

We have never actively killed American citizens not involved in a firefight during battle without trial on order from the president of the United States. So no, this isnt a step up in accountability. Further what accountability Obama has erected for himself can as the article notes be suspended if he deems it necessary.

So I ask you. Why do law abiding, non-crazy Americans have to die in order for those who hate America to enjoy the rights they've already repudiated? How many lives of pilots, entry team members or spooks does it take to equal the rights of a person who works for AQ?

The right of law abiding citizens to live outweighs the right of terrorists to use protections they've refused by choice and action. I don't think I can break it down further than that.

Ahh this is the perfect response. The lives of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The battle call that has been used countless times in history to erect tyranny. Seriously, did you just spit that out and not recognize what you are saying?

As for answering your question. We have had millions die for these legal protections througout our history. For you to piss all over their graves because a boogeyman scares you halfway around the world is shameful.

 

[Genx87]

He was convicted, served his time in the US. Then was extradited back to Panama to serve the sentence given him by Panama.

What a perfect example. Noriega gets a trial but US citizens dont.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Why aren't we killing gang members and drug dealers in mass?

I am pretty sure some drug lord in Columbia kills more people that some terrorist who talks.

If the government wanted to kill the real terrorist, why not kill some of those drug smugglers in mexico?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/12/21/covert-action-in-colombia/