Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

[BUnit1701]

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?

Seems simple, if the host government is allowing terrorists to openly plan and coordinate attacks on its soil, they have given up any pretense of being a legitimate regime, and should be replaced.

 

[SlickSnake]

I support everyones right to life, regardless of location, sex, race, religion or nationality.

As a US citizen our rights are protected.

Eric Holder confirmed and expanded those rights to everyone, and not just US citizens. That is unless holder was lying. Do you think he was lying?




Yes, I am an asshole.

The woman made her choice when she spread her legs. Rape and incest are a different situation.

Just as a man made his choice when he deposited his sperm, the woman made we choice when she received the mans sperm.

Please don't edit this again just to add more jizz. One load was enough, thanks.

 

[Nebor]

So funny to see the left wing people defending drone strikes and the right wingers calling them illegal and wrong, all based on who's in the white house.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Oh, please. Don't give us the apples vs aardvarks comparison, please.

As I pointed out in post #137, our laws do not apply in foreign countries. Quit pretending that they do. Our laws also apply equally to everybody in US jurisdiction, citizen or foreigner. There is no special legal prosecution status associated with citizenship. Quit pretending that there is.

Get past your false premises.

None of that applies, anyway, because we have no right to use drones the way we do unless we believe that a state of War exists, even if we're the ones creating it. All the normal rules are discarded in War & different rules apply. If we want to wage a War on Terror, then we have to accept the idea that the CinC will apply the rules of War, entirely by our consent. Obviously, that does not include ethnic cleansing or genocide. In War, the citizenship of hostiles matters not in the least. In War, collateral casualties are acceptable, unlike during international police action in peacetime.

I've opposed defining it as War from the beginning, and to using the means of War to act against it. OTOH, those of you who want War need to accept the fact that it will be waged by entirely different rules than civilian justice, regardless of who is the CinC.

The Bush Admin was the first to use drones, iirc, and offered no greater justification than the Obama Admin, who expanded on their efforts for a variety of reasons. It was the Bush Admin who defined it as War in the first place, unleashing a massive propaganda campaign of fear mongering to do so, the effects of which will apparently be with us for a long time. So long as that holds, the definitions & tools of War will be used by any future CinC as well.

Get used to it, and get over yourself & your Obama hate while you're at it.

So your stance is , Bush!

So you're basically a Democratic 'Freeper'?

 

[Victorian Gray]

those who can't find humor in the follies or even terrors that humans commit, strike me as droll, small-minded individuals.
:\

The thing is, we're probably on the same "side," you and I, for most of this, but I have managed to shuffle off my righteous indignation and often choose a more pragmatic approach to the issues that disturb me.

I actually feel bad about my reaction to your post and apologize. I misinterpreted what you were saying and over reacted.

 

[werepossum]

So your stance is , Bush!

So you're basically a Democratic 'Freeper'?

Definitely not. Freepers are capable of occasional rational thought.

Personally I've never understood why it would be acceptable to kill a Pakistani in Pakistan but not an American in Pakistan doing the exact same things. Seems to me that the justification for the American would be if anything stronger as the American is at least nominally under US jurisdiction whereas the Pakistani is not.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So funny to see the left wing people defending drone strikes and the right wingers calling them illegal and wrong, all based on who's in the white house.

Not the reason for everybody.

 

[Nebor]

Not the reason for everybody.

But the reason for most. They squabble, congress bickers & deadlocks, all the while executive power grows and grows.

 

[Moonbeam]

So your stance is , Bush!

So you're basically a Democratic 'Freeper'?

I asked you before if you would take extralegal action to save the human race if it were the only way it could be saved? You avoided answering. In your pursuit of the absolute you destroy the good. You are simply an airy fairy purist, like a libertarian, who refuses to face the evil in doing the better of two evil deeds and thus you fail to act. It's a form of liberal paralysis, thinking yourself into a hole where your 'on the one hand and on the other' ties you in knots. It is the job of the President to make these calls. Vote for the best of bad worlds.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Definitely not. Freepers are capable of occasional rational thought.

In my experience, very, very few.

Personally I've never understood why it would be acceptable to kill a Pakistani in Pakistan but not an American in Pakistan doing the exact same things. Seems to me that the justification for the American would be if anything stronger as the American is at least nominally under US jurisdiction whereas the Pakistani is not.

One of the problems is, we don't know *why* these people are being targeted and killed as the gov't won't tell anyone.

As this ACLU rep put it:

"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, in a statement. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging, let alone explaining his death. A bureaucratized paramilitary killing program that targets people far from any battlefield is not just unlawful, it will create more enemies than it kills."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

 

[Jhhnn]

I support everyones right to life, regardless of location, sex, race, religion or nationality.

As a US citizen our rights are protected.

Eric Holder confirmed and expanded those rights to everyone, and not just US citizens. That is unless holder was lying. Do you think he was lying?

Yes, I am an asshole.

So, uhh, everybody has the same rights even in time of War? That's the real issue, whether you support the WoT or whether you see it better performed as an international police action.

Can't have it both ways, no matter how much you obfuscate around it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I asked you before if you would take extralegal action to save the human race if it were the only way it could be saved? You avoided answering. In your pursuit of the absolute you destroy the good. You are simply an airy fairy purist, like a libertarian, who refuses to face the evil in doing the better of two evil deeds and thus you fail to act. It's a form of liberal paralysis, thinking yourself into a hole where your 'on the one hand and on the other' ties you in knots. It is the job of the President to make these calls. Vote for the best of bad worlds.

The example was ignored as it was absurd fantasy.

Blind acceptance of authority, now where have we seen *that* fail before?

For someone who is always railing against conservatives and conservative thought you are exhibiting some seriously 'conservative' thought in your blind acceptance of authority in this matter.

I'll repeat this quote:

"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, in a statement. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging, let alone explaining his death. A bureaucratized paramilitary killing program that targets people far from any battlefield is not just unlawful, it will create more enemies than it kills."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2012438.html

 

[Jhhnn]

But the reason for most. They squabble, congress bickers & deadlocks, all the while executive power grows and grows.

That's because of a need for action. If Congress won't act, the executive often will.

So which Party has the most radical, partisan, factional & obstructionist record in the modern history of Congress, anyway? Which Senate minority leader filibustered his own bill minutes after introducing it? Who opposes action at every turn, thus abdicating to the Executive?

 

[actuarial]

The woman made her choice when she spread her legs. Rape and incest are a different situation.

This is an interesting turn.

Are you claiming abortion is okay as long as the woman was raped? I don't want to jump all over the straw man game here.

 

[Nebor]

That's because of a need for action. If Congress won't act, the executive often will.

So which Party has the most radical, partisan, factional & obstructionist record in the modern history of Congress, anyway? Which Senate minority leader filibustered his own bill minutes after introducing it? Who opposes action at every turn, thus abdicating to the Executive?

I assume you're referring the the Republican's calculating moves to further empower President Obama. It's been their plan all along. :sneaky:

 

[Jhhnn]

I assume you're referring the the Republican's calculating moves to further empower President Obama. It's been their plan all along. :sneaky:

They still prevent more action than they allow, cripple & discredit govt by their own deeds, so it works for them.

 

[Nebor]

They still prevent more action than they allow, cripple & discredit govt by their own deeds, so it works for them.

Seems like it works for everyone. Everyone wins.

 

[Moonbeam]

VG: The example was ignored as it was absurd fantasy.

M: The example was ignored because you can't possibly answer it according to your postured belief without appearing to be a fool.

VG: Blind acceptance of authority, now where have we seen *that* fail before?

M: Don't you know that too many cooks spoil the broth. I hope you don't think I'd follow somebody as upside down to reality as you are on this issue despite your many other virtues. You are simply a follower of your own blind notions of morality that you set before you as authority. I at least follow mine fearless leader with my fingers pinching my nose.

VG: For someone who is always railing against conservatives and conservative thought you are exhibiting some seriously 'conservative' thought in your blind acceptance of authority in this matter.

M: And I'll get zero credit from those assholes for it.

VG: I'll repeat this quote:

"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, in a statement. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging, let alone explaining his death. A bureaucratized paramilitary killing program that targets people far from any battlefield is not just unlawful, it will create more enemies than it kills."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2012438.html

M: Not saying that any action we take in the name of national security is in fact taken justly, only that the principle is sound and couldn't logically be any other way. Nobody cares about the letter of the law when faced with the extermination of innocent people by the insane. You wipe them out as fast as you can if that is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE. This is simply instinctually correct. Are you alive or are you suffering from a liberal brain defect? Whatever the case, give me a conservative in the foxhole next to me, please. Anybody but you. I'd have to shoot you in self defense so you'd be replaced. You must have spent all your life on a pillow. Don't be mad. I'm with you all the way up to the cliff of protecting our rights. I'm just not going to jump off with you and take some other innocent people with me. Rights are sacred but you're not going to hide behind them and murder innocent people behind them if I have a say in it.

 

[kage69]

Why do I need to define war in this instance?
The guy has aligned himself with (para)military forces and is involved in action against the US.
It's nothing like the actions of nazi Germany against the Jews. For a start you haven't captured this guy. If you captured him then tortured and killed him, his family and everyone if the same religion then you might have the beginning of a point but that's not the case.

This guy has chosen to go and fight with the enemy.

------

That's a bit of a fatuous argument. If the guy is fighting against you what do you want your forces to do? Ask him to please stop being silly and offer himself up for arrest?
Also execution not found. If he was captured and in your power then you could squeal execution all you wanted but as it is this is just the way people die when they choose to fight in a war.

You, my good man, are officially my favorite taffy.

 

[WelshBloke]

You, my good man, are officially my favorite taffy.

It was between me and Tom Jones wasn't it?
I have better hair than him.

 

[kage69]

It was between me and Tom Jones wasn't it?
I have better hair than him.

Negative. Your savoir faire was up against Pancho, that suave motherfucker from Dirty Sanchez.

I'm sure your hair is lovely though. Is it the cockles? I think it's the cockles.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Bombs away, I say.

:thumbsup:

 

[LunarRay]

I think all I hear in this thread is "I don't like drones"....

How about a MOAB... you know... the ones we dropped all over Baghdad back when... The collateral damage from those devices was wide spread. The delivery system was an aircraft...

I also recall a few hundred cruise missile strikes and they are a lot like a drone...

Regarding the target... I guess I don't see the name as clearly on a MOAB or Missile as I do on a Drone. However, I prefer the enemy dead regardless of his citizenship, religion, race, or sex. If you want doing war, fine! But don't pussy foot about doing it. IF you're Al Qaeda then you are the enemy and we are at war with you...

 

[Nebor]

I think all I hear in this thread is "I don't like drones"....

How about a MOAB... you know... the ones we dropped all over Baghdad back when... The collateral damage from those devices was wide spread. The delivery system was an aircraft...

I also recall a few hundred cruise missile strikes and they are a lot like a drone...

Regarding the target... I guess I don't see the name as clearly on a MOAB or Missile as I do on a Drone. However, I prefer the enemy dead regardless of his citizenship, religion, race, or sex. If you want doing war, fine! But don't pussy foot about doing it. IF you're Al Qaeda then you are the enemy and we are at war with you...

GBU-43s have never been used in combat.

 

[trenchfoot]

You know, I wonder how this "US Citizen" who is being targeted would feel if he ever got to read this thread? I wonder how he would use his US citizenship to give advantage to the sworn enemy of the USA of whom he is now willing to die for?

It seems to me that this "US citizen" was more than willing to give up his citizenship to side with our sworn enemy who had previously declared holy war against us.

So to me, this "US citizen" has, in his own mind, already forsaken all that is afforded him from being a "citizen" of our country the moment he decided he would rather kill Americans rather than those he now pledges loyalty to.

Logically then, all that remains of his "citizenship" is the technicality that he did not renounce it good and proper before going over to the other side, and he very well may not have with the thought in mind that should he somehow be captured by us, his "citizenship" would protect him from being militarily declared a prisoner of war and prosecuted accordingly.

It seems to me that he shouldn't be afforded the privileges of citizenship, nor the inherent advantages it would afford him as his heart and mind belongs to the enemy, who is actually waging holy war against us, making him a military target of opportunity. He is one of them in mind and spirit and yet one of us due to a technicality that he can use to his advantage.

I don't see why he should be afforded the privileges of citizenship when he has all but renounced it AND declared holy war against the very nation he is a "citizen" of. Why give him something he obviously doesn't deserve and actually despises enough to go to war against?

All of which begs the question: Would he, if captured at great expense of our lives and treasure, demand he be tried as a "citizen" of the USA or declare himself a prisoner of holy war and wish to be martyred in grand public fashion?