Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

[Hayabusa Rider]

I haven't violated any American's constitutional rights.

Mine was the generic "you". I'm not saying times and context do not change but I am saying that the Constitution as written isn't infinitely malleable. If it were why bother with one at all as it's meaningless.

If one believes that the government ought to be able to point to people in a room and say "terrorist" and by that word alone have them removed without hope of ever defending themselves then they are entitled to that belief. Putting it into action is another thing entirely. If a police state is the goal then make it official in the binding document.

That said I'm not completely without pragmatism and at times extraordinary things require extraordinary action. In that case extraordinary measures must be taken to verify and not assume that the presumptions under which we are operating are correct. So far in this century we have failed, spectacularly, to do the later. We as a people have failed, spectacularly so, to hold those responsible to accountability. If as you say you are in the armed forces then you cannot possibly fail to understand that this must result in a lack of discipline which in turn gets the wrong people killed. This is not a trivial matter in any context yet all of which I've mentioned seems to be dismissed by many as if it were.

We invest great power in those elected, fail to demand that they respect us, fail to discipline them, and scream against accountability. Catastrophic failure is the natural consequence of such a scenario and again if you are as you say you know this. We, not Bush or Obama are at the top of the chain of command and we have failed miserably by allowing and tolerating gross incompetence and THAT is my real concern. I do not believe that We The People have given notice that there is no excuse for incompetence in thought, word or deed when it comes to the extraordinary. This is serious business and there seems to be a conspicuous lack of sense about this.

People would bust Harvey's balls, but just who is watching over who is watching over us? Recent events demonstrate that oversight has been a matter of lip service, that assumptions of policy, efficacy, and correctness are not tested and challenged. Secrecy has been yet again been abused to conceal malfeasance and incompetence, and yes I'm not being kind and forgiving. This is deadly serious business and I have good reason to insist, no demand, that those under my command, that is the elected, be exemplary in every aspect in this matter.

"But this guy!" Frankly I don't care. It may well be that this situation has been properly assessed and extreme measures called for. It may result in operational perfection. Obama may do the right thing at the right time for the right reason with no collateral damage with the intended result. Mission accomplished and well done, but on 9/11 we became a different nation and with our aid Bin Laden achieved his goal beyond his wildest dreams. They can't kill us all and that was never needed anyway. What he needed to do is murder who we were, to tar and feather us as fearful moral failures. and we've embraced his vision all too easily. I would have us defeat him but no amount of bloodshed can do that. How then? By retaining our humanity, being courageous enough to be what we merely pretended and do so under adversity. Any fool can die for a cause, but it takes much more to live for one. That is the end game, the true end of the war and terrorism.

 

[Jhhnn]

So your stance is , Bush!

So you're basically a Democratic 'Freeper'?

Please. Obama is no more capable of redefining the WoT than Truman was capable of redefining WW2. Both stepped into a role largely determined before they took it. Witness Gitmo.

So long as the effort against terrorism is defined as War, the CinC will wage it as such. GWB established those definitions & those efforts. At this point, it's what America demands- maximum effort to achieve maximum safety. We're still skeered, thanks to the massive propaganda effort at the time.

I think the cure of War is worse than the disease of terrorism, always have, but I'm clearly a minority.

Cue the usual raving & hand wringing over our pending withdrawal from Afghanistan. Expect the drone war in that part of the world to cease or be sharply curtailed for lack of basing & all the "concerns" to rise to a fever pitch in a different direction than at present, cuz that's when the evil Obama will be givin' the place back to the Terrarists.

Current right wing piety about killing holed up American terror suspects isn't about that per se, but rather about who's doing it. It's pure partisanship in the usual "concern" wrapper. Repubs do that a lot- take a turd, wrap it up all shiny, fling it in the direction of Obama. It's still a turd.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Reminder to self- never peek

 

[Texashiker]

So, uhh, everybody has the same rights even in time of War?

Last I heard congress has not passed a declaration of war.

So technically, we are not at war.

There is the Iraq Resolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

But is that the same thing as a declaration of war?

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.

Which is the lesser of two evils.

My wife and I know a young lady who is in her mid 20's. The mother told her she is the product of a rape.

She never knew her real dad, the mother does not even know who the dad is.

Lets just say the woman has anger issues that will probably never be dealt with. Her and her husband fight all the time, she has control issues,,, she just has problems.

Should a woman bring a child into the world who will probably never be able to lead a normal life? That is the question I keep asking myself.

 

[kage69]

GBU-43s have never been used in combat.

That's my understanding as well. Maybe he's thinking of Daisy Cutters? We did use some in Afghanistan.

Other than the test at Eglin years ago, the handful that were made are still waiting to be used. I know the brass were envisioning it as the final word on scaring the Iraqis into surrender, but they were largely ready to give up as soon as the shooting started (not talking about Fedayeen) so there wasn't much reason to deploy.

I remember hearing some talk about a MOAB being dropped next to an Iraqi division as a "you sure you wanna dance?" display, but as far as I can tell that didn't actually happen. Probably a Fox bit that took off on it's own with the Murica, fuck yeah! crowd, but who knows.

 

[kage69]

That is the question I keep asking myself.

Go ask and ponder it in a thread about abortion then, or make one. This thread is about the politics of terrorism and traitors.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's my understanding as well. Maybe he's thinking of Daisy Cutters? We did use some in Afghanistan.

Other than the test at Eglin years ago, the handful that were made are still waiting to be used. I know the brass were envisioning it as the final word on scaring the Iraqis into surrender, but they were largely ready to give up as soon as the shooting started (not talking about Fedayeen) so there wasn't much reason to.

I remember hearing some talk about a MOAB being dropped next to an Iraqi division as a "you sure you wanna dance?" display, but as far as I can tell that didn't actually happen. Probably a Fox bit that took off on it's own with the Murica, fuck yeah! crowd, but who knows.

There was never a need. The military success was inevitable once a working supply chain was established. The military estimation of what needed to be done to accomplish its mission was spot on. It was the idiots we put in office that didn't understand that if you bomb the crap out of a nation to get rid of a leader no one cares for they won't thank you for it.

 

[Texashiker]

Go ask and ponder it in a thread about abortion then, or make one. This thread is about the politics of terrorism and traitors.

Remind me who started this thread?

 

[WelshBloke]

Remind me who started this thread?

So all your threads are just Trojan horses so you can crow bar an argument about abortion on people?

 

[werepossum]

In my experience, very, very few.

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

More transparency would certainly be a good thing as a rule, but there is also a very real concern about preserving intelligence assets. Remember that this is not just the military or the CIA killing people, these each have to be cleared by the President, and while I'm not generally a fan of Barack Obama, I believe he takes this very seriously. Which does not preclude him making a wrong decision of course, especially since he must rely totally on CIA and military intelligence to make the call. Certainly there are valid points to be made against the practice, but on balance I think it's a necessary evil.

No matter how we fight a war, civilians are going to die, period. I don't believe that the number of enemies created by killing terrorists depends on what due process is involved in selecting targets. Personally I am not willing to commit our men and women in uniform to absurd attempts to be law enforcement officials knowing that some of them would be killed and others captured and tortured to death. I also believe there is some deterrent value in the other side knowing that death can come from out of the blue, no matter how far they are from the actual battlefield. Even fighting this cult of death, the leaders typically make a great distinction between sending people to die for the faith and themselves dieing for the faith.

 

[Texashiker]

So all your threads are just Trojan horses so you can crow bar an argument about abortion on people?

Honest question deserves an honest answer. Someone asked me a question so I gave them an answer.

If that offends someone else, too bad.

 

[bradly1101]

I think drones are a chicken-shit weapon. How do you tell a drone it's got the wrong guy? How do you surrender to one?

 

[bshole]

So all your threads are just Trojan horses so you can crow bar an argument about abortion on people?

That is a damn funny line. I can't stop chuckling. I have no idea why it strikes me as so amusing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is a damn funny line. I can't stop chuckling. I have no idea why it strikes me as so amusing.

He used "trojan" and "abortion" in the same sentence. I caught that and thought it amusing. Don't know if that was intentional, but he should claim it anyway

 

[kage69]

Remind me who started this thread?

Apparently some knob who can't remember his own thread's subject, who also feels that as OP he's allowed to derail/troll at will.

I hope that jogs your memory.

 

[kage69]

More transparency would certainly be a good thing as a rule, but there is also a very real concern about preserving intelligence assets. Remember that this is not just the military or the CIA killing people, these each have to be cleared by the President, and while I'm not generally a fan of Barack Obama, I believe he takes this very seriously. Which does not preclude him making a wrong decision of course, especially since he must rely totally on CIA and military intelligence to make the call. Certainly there are valid points to be made against the practice, but on balance I think it's a necessary evil.

No matter how we fight a war, civilians are going to die, period. I don't believe that the number of enemies created by killing terrorists depends on what due process is involved in selecting targets. Personally I am not willing to commit our men and women in uniform to absurd attempts to be law enforcement officials knowing that some of them would be killed and others captured and tortured to death. I also believe there is some deterrent value in the other side knowing that death can come from out of the blue, no matter how far they are from the actual battlefield. Even fighting this cult of death, the leaders typically make a great distinction between sending people to die for the faith and themselves dieing for the faith.

Now that's my kinda of possum post. Well said you old coot.

 

[Jhhnn]

Last I heard congress has not passed a declaration of war.

So technically, we are not at war.

There is the Iraq Resolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

But is that the same thing as a declaration of war?

Oh, please. The AUMF is a declaration of War against anybody the CinC designates as the enemy. Read it-

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

You love the WoT, you just hate that Obama is the one waging it. So, technically, you're desperate to blame Obama for something with ever shifting rationales.

 

[kage69]

I think drones are a chicken-shit weapon.

As long as they are proficient in gathering intel and killing hard to reach targets, so? I can't begin to describe the immensity of the fuck I don't give if people think drones are unfair or cowardly.

There's no such thing as a fair fight. Write that down.

If you're fighting fair, then your tactics suck ass, period.

How do you tell a drone it's got the wrong guy?

You tell the operator? Real time satellite communications mean Predator gets the message almost immediately, loud and clear.

How do you surrender to one?

With difficulty. Hard to surrender to something you can't even see, no? Why is it you consider that a criticism of drones? They can't hold ground or interact with captives - should we abandon the use of Apache gunships for the same reason then? Do you think tanks are unnecessary because they can't perform search and rescue? What a strange complaint, particularly in regards to fighting suicidal, non state combatants who don't give a rats ass about the Geneva Convention.

 

[Fern]

Hey, it's your constitution, not mine. If you don't care that it's getting 'bent' for political reasons that's for you to deal with.

I'll just use that old Ben Franklin quote again:

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
(11 Nov. 1755)

Nothing is getting "bent".

The USA has long used AUMF's. Congress started passing them back before the war of 1812.

An AUMF is a declaration of war. From a Constitutional law standpoint there is no difference between the two. An AUMF is a clear statement from Congress that military force is to be employed. The SCOTUS has said there are no magic words needed to be used to constitute a declaration of war under the Constitution.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Well I'm the fly in the ointment.

The President has what authority has been granted him under law and within the boundaries of the Constitution. He has rights and powers, however I find no reason they ought to be unlimited or unquestioned. We had this happen with Bush who decided that his Constitutional position allowed him to effectively veto habeas corpus.

Here's the Constitution on the matter.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

This limited ability is given to Congress, not the executive branch, nevertheless at least one american citizen on US soil was detained without due process. I found that disturbing.
-snip-

I don't think it was all that disturbing.

The idea was that:

1) an AUMF = Declaration of War. And there had been an invasion (9/11 attack on US soil).

2) Declaration of War = Presidential power to suspend habeas corpus. (I.e., it automatically conveys the right to suspend HC.)

The SCOTUS said 'yes' to the first, but said 'no' to the second. The SCOTUS agreed that Congress has the ability to grant the power to suspend habeas corpus but must do so affirmatively. I.e., it must be explicitly stated in the AUMF and Congress did not do that in this AUMF.

IIRC, the question had not been addressed previously by the SCOTUS so it wasn't a terribly unreasonable position.

But now the question has been answered, so that is that.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Then again, if there is definitive proof this guy joined a terrorist organization, why not just revoke his citizenship (joining a foreign, hostile army is one of the reasons your citizenship could be voided)? Then, would it be okay to blow him up?

Probably 2 reasons:

1. It's not very easy to do. If he were a natural born citizen I don't think it can be revoked under current law. If he was a naturalized citizen it can only be revoked under limited circumstances, even so he may not fit the parameters for revocation.

2. Catch 22. I'm pretty sure revoking his citizenship is subject to due process. If you can't get him here for trial as a terrorist how you gonna get him here for a trial/hearing about his citizenship?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Last I heard congress has not passed a declaration of war.

So technically, we are not at war.

There is the Iraq Resolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

But is that the same thing as a declaration of war?
-snip-

For Constitutional purposes an AUMF is a declaration of war.

(There are bureaucratic differences. E.g., the number of reservists who can automatically be called up diff.)

Fern

 

[OutHouse]

humm i thought that every american has a right to due process.

Obama killing americans without due process is up there with stalin, Mao and paranoid medieval kings.

 

[LunarRay]

GBU-43s have never been used in combat.

Seems to me I said: MOAB.... Bush used that term to indicate the mother of all bombs... and Cruise Missile.... which I watched smacking into the Baghdad area during the first Iraqi war and Drone... which I've not seen deployed but I have reason to believe have been employed against targets at least recently.

I have no knowledge about using GBU-43s nor did I mention them. IF, however, they could be used to decimate the enemy I'd encourage the use of them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think it was all that disturbing.

The idea was that:

1) an AUMF = Declaration of War. And there had been an invasion (9/11 attack on US soil).

2) Declaration of War = Presidential power to suspend habeas corpus. (I.e., it automatically conveys the right to suspend HC.)

The SCOTUS said 'yes' to the first, but said 'no' to the second. The SCOTUS agreed that Congress has the ability to grant the power to suspend habeas corpus but must do so affirmatively. I.e., it must be explicitly stated in the AUMF and Congress did not do that in this AUMF.

IIRC, the question had not been addressed previously by the SCOTUS so it wasn't a terribly unreasonable position.

But now the question has been answered, so that is that.

Fern

Somehow that second part is hardly comforting. In essence that which is not overtly unconstitutional is permitted until the four or so years, assuming it's heard at all, pass.

No thank you. That mentality is highly disturbing.