Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

[werepossum]

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?

How do you tell anyone? Drones can fly lower and slower, and make more passes, than a manned aircraft because there is no risk to our people. Would you prefer to have your neighbor's house targeted by a Hellfire missile fired from a drone at 10,000 ft by an operator in Kansas viewing the house through a telephoto lens and requesting clearance to fire from another military officer not in harm's way, or by a Maverick missile fired from a Warthog at 15,000 ft by a pilot who has only the Maverick's optics to see by and who must keep a constant watch for missile trails coming to kill him?

You obviously want this done by troops on the ground. Now, I agree completely with Kage that the point of military action should not be a fair fight, but the very opposite. But setting that aside, no poorly armed terrorist force is going to adopt that kind of fair fight. You'd have civilians killed by massive explosions triggered to kill the American "cops", civilians killed because American soldiers interpreted their actions as going for a weapon or trigger, civilians killed while running because American soldiers are scary or they have something else to hide, in addition to the American soldiers and Marines killed attempting to be cops in hostile lands and worse, those taken captive and tortured to death. You'd likely have large scale warfare between American troops and those in Pakistan, Yemen, etc. since they could hardly avoid reacting to that kind of invasion.

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

Thanks. Now get off my lawn you damned kids!

 

[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.

Here's the clause in the Constitution:

2: 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.

9/11 can reasonably be considered an invasion and from a plain reading of the text I can see how some thought suspension of Habeas Corpus was therefore authorized.

That clause is in section 9 of Art 1 and there is no language that I can see that says Congress must explicitly confer that power to the President.

And it should be noted that the President's primary responsibility under the Constitution is to protect and defend the USA and the Constitution. It was never intended that he await Congressional action to do so.

So, I don't think a reasonable exercise of such powers is disturbing. Had they rounded up people en mass I would feel differently.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

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

Other than when actively being with the enemy in a foreign country. Minor point, I suppose. The AUMF created for GWB gives the CinC the right to define who that enemy might be, as well, and to use appropriate military force within the normal rules of War.

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

Such a partisan tool. I'm sure that if the guy showed up at an American consulate to defend himself in court that he'd get a fair trial, same if local authorities turned him over via extradition. If terrorism were being handled as law enforcement, we wouldn't be able to touch the guy where he's at, or anybody else for that matter. OTOH, this was defined as War a dozen years ago, therefore the rules & rationales of War apply. Drones in this instance. For the purposes of the WoT in this instance, it doesn't matter if the guy is an American, a sentient space alien or whatever.

I've opposed militarization from the beginning. I also understand that the fearful masses & the president's critics must be appeased now that the course was set years ago.

I doubt you shed any tears or had any second thoughts when Dubya set out to punish the evildoers in the wake of 9/11, so spare us the maudlin faux "concern", OK?

 

[Jhhnn]

So, I don't think a reasonable exercise of such powers is disturbing. Had they rounded up people en mass I would feel differently.

You're probably not referring to the prison at Gitmo, are you?

 

[werepossum]

Here's the clause in the Constitution:

9/11 can reasonably be considered an invasion and from a plain reading of the text I can see how some thought suspension of Habeas Corpus was therefore authorized.

That clause is in section 9 of Art 1 and there is no language that I can see that says Congress must explicitly confer that power to the President.

And it should be noted that the President's primary responsibility under the Constitution is to protect and defend the USA and the Constitution. It was never intended that he await Congressional action to do so.

So, I don't think a reasonable exercise of such powers is disturbing. Had they rounded up people en mass I would feel differently.

Fern

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was adjudicated in World War II when we had many American citizens captured while fighting for Germany, with the result that an American citizen who chooses to be an enemy combatant is not entitled to Habeas Corpus privilege but rather is subject to military law. Certainly this is a gray area as many of these people are not combatants but rather are trainers or fundraisers, but I'm shedding no tears for them.

 

[Fern]

You're probably not referring to the prison at Gitmo, are you?

No.

I have no problems with GITMO. I would have preferred an even remoter location, somewhere in the ME.

And GITMO isn't really related to this topic. Those people were not US citizens, they were not captured on US soil etc. They have no Constitutional rights as far as I'm concerned. As foreign enemy combatants their rights are found in the Geneva Convention, although that rather inconvenient for many given they were out-of-uniform.

To the extent is does apply it is in pointing out liberal hypocrisy. I remember a lot of screaming about the rights of those confined to GITMO even though they weren't US citizens. It's odd to now see the same drop the whole 'rights' complaint even though the person in question is a US citizen just because we're talking about Obama.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was adjudicated in World War II when we had many American citizens captured while fighting for Germany, with the result that an American citizen who chooses to be an enemy combatant is not entitled to Habeas Corpus privilege but rather is subject to military law. Certainly this is a gray area as many of these people are not combatants but rather are trainers or fundraisers, but I'm shedding no tears for them.

I'm not sure how many Americans fought for the Axis. There were at least a few, and a lot of others from all over the occupied territories, particularly in the Waffen SS. Citizenship didn't matter then, nor has it ever. War transcends such distinctions.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Justification for killing a 16 year old American citizen who, as far as we know, never did anything except make the mistake of having the wrong father. Apparently a crime deserving of death.

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

[Robert]GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

You really are a team player aren't you?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

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.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Remind me who started this thread?

And you keep on trolling your own thread. Congratulation?

 

[Texashiker]

Congratulation?

<Elvis voice>


Thank you, thank you very much.


</Elvis voice>

 

[Jhhnn]

No.

I have no problems with GITMO. I would have preferred an even remoter location, somewhere in the ME.

And GITMO isn't really related to this topic. Those people were not US citizens, they were not captured on US soil etc. They have no Constitutional rights as far as I'm concerned. As foreign enemy combatants their rights are found in the Geneva Convention, although that rather inconvenient for many given they were out-of-uniform.

To the extent is does apply it is in pointing out liberal hypocrisy. I remember a lot of screaming about the rights of those confined to GITMO even though they weren't US citizens. It's odd to now see the same drop the whole 'rights' complaint even though the person in question is a US citizen just because we're talking about Obama.

Fern

Under the circumstances, the guy in question has no more rights than anybody else. His citizenship is utterly immaterial, because this is defined as War by the AUMF. The premise, the claim, is total bullshit and any conclusions reached from it are just deeper into the Stygian mess.

And yet you defend Gitmo, where guys mistakenly taken captive way back when are still incarcerated, by our govt's own admission.

You exhibit just the kind of headset so thrilled with it all when Dubya scored that propaganda coup.

Yep, take them evil terrorists to the other side of the world where we can break their balls off! Dubya & Dickie, Tough on Terrar! Rah! Rah!

Consequences? Fuck the Consequences! Rah! Rah! This is War!

Fat lot of good it's done, other than keeping them elected while creating a few more victims & insoluble legal & constitutional issues.

The drone war certainly doesn't rise to the callous mindfuck malevolence of that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

9/11 can reasonably be considered an invasion and from a plain reading of the text I can see how some thought suspension of Habeas Corpus was therefore authorized.

By your criteria one person can constitute a rebellion. Two a civil war? Three Armageddon?

This is a disingenuous argument when applied to circumvent what ought to be a common sense application of Constitutional principle. We had a tragedy which required action, but invasion? Hell, tear it up. Next week someone might fart.

Perhaps "The Beatles Invasion" was supposed to be a literal thing.

 

[Fern]

Under the circumstances, the guy in question has no more rights than anybody else. His citizenship is utterly immaterial, because this is defined as War by the AUMF. The premise, the claim, is total bullshit and any conclusions reached from it are just deeper into the Stygian mess.

So, I take it you were arguing against your fellow dems/libs. I.e., arguing that foreign combatants at GITMO didn't have Constitutional rights?

And yet you defend Gitmo, where guys mistakenly taken captive way back when are still incarcerated, by our govt's own admission.

Sure, I defend GITMO. And, no, that doesn't mean I defend locking up and holding innocent people.

You exhibit just the kind of headset so thrilled with it all when Dubya scored that propaganda coup.

Yep, take them evil terrorists to the other side of the world where we can break their balls off! Dubya & Dickie, Tough on Terrar! Rah! Rah!

Consequences? Fuck the Consequences! Rah! Rah! This is War!

Fat lot of good it's done, other than keeping them elected while creating a few more victims & insoluble legal & constitutional issues.

The drone war certainly doesn't rise to the callous mindfuck malevolence of that.

The only "headset" I've exhibited is consistency. I had no Constitutional problems with GITMO and I have none Obama for using drones on a US citizen who takes up arms against the USA.

And I note that you've abandoned any argument about Constitutional principle and now go with emotion.

Fern

 

[Texashiker]

Under the circumstances, the guy in question has no more rights than anybody else.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What part of "unalienable" do people not understand?

The only "headset" I've exhibited is consistency. I had no Constitutional problems with GITMO

You have no problem with detaining someone forever?

You ever hear of this thing called a speedy trial?

and I have none Obama for using drones on a US citizen who takes up arms against the USA.

Lets start with the drug lords, serial killers, pedophiles,,,, everyone who harms a US citizen does not deserve a trial or jury.

 

[Fern]

By your criteria one person can constitute a rebellion. Two a civil war? Three Armageddon?

This is a disingenuous argument when applied to circumvent what ought to be a common sense application of Constitutional principle. We had a tragedy which required action, but invasion? Hell, tear it up. Next week someone might fart.

Perhaps "The Beatles Invasion" was supposed to be a literal thing.

A "tragedy"? It was an attack.

Congress thought so too, thus the AUMF.

And you're prone to your own argument. How many people do we need involved before we can use our tools of defense? A thousand, ten thousand, a million, a billion?

We saw where less than 20 people killed a few thousand in the WTC. So, I'm strongly disinclined to accept any argument that we need some substantial magic number before reacting with the tools our Constitution provides.

Fern

 

[Texashiker]

We saw where less than 20 people killed a few thousand in the WTC.

But yet we have gangs on your streets who kill our citizens every day.

The government can not be selective on which group it classifies as a terrorist.

Either everyone who takes up arms against our citizens are terrorist, or nobody is.

Under the governments own logic, and yours, when can we expect drone strikes on the crips, bloods and skinheads? Why do gang members even get trials? Just detain them forever.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

You have no problem with detaining someone forever?

You ever hear of this thing called a speedy trial?

IMO they are POWs.

POWs can be, and are, detained indefinitely. There is no right to a speedy trial.

You are confusing or mixing up rules used under military the action and criminal law rules.

I have consistently argued that terrorism should not be treated like crime, but rather military type aggression. The two are vastly different and have, as they should, much different rules.

If I thought this should be treated as a crime I would be on your side. But I don't and therefore am not.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A "tragedy"? It was an attack.

Congress thought so too, thus the AUMF.

And you're prone to your own argument. How many people do we need involved before we can use our tools of defense? A thousand, ten thousand, a million, a billion?

We saw where less than 20 people killed a few thousand in the WTC. So, I'm strongly disinclined to accept any argument that we need some substantial magic number before reacting with the tools our Constitution provides.

Fern

I'm starting to think you don't understand what my argument is.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The government can not be selective on which group it classifies as a terrorist.

I think it can, and should, be selective as to who it defines as terrorists.

Either everyone who takes up arms against our citizens are terrorist, or nobody is.

Too simplistic.

Under the governments own logic, and yours, when can we expect drone strikes on the crips, bloods and skinheads? Why do gang members even get trials? Just detain them forever.

Well, that's certainly not my logic.

I don't see where/how gangs like the crips have anything in common with terrorists like AQ. The mere fact that deaths results is far too superficial. Car crashes result in death yet no one is defining them as terrorist attacks

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Justification for killing a 16 year old American citizen who, as far as we know, never did anything except make the mistake of having the wrong father. Apparently a crime deserving of death.

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

[Robert]GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

You really are a team player aren't you?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

Heh. Nice sensationalist article. The 16 year old? He wasn't the target. Collateral damage in Dubya's war.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Egyptian-born Gihan Mohsen Baker had an American son, born on September 13, 1995, in Denver, named Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki.[250] Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members two weeks after the death of his father.[251] Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-led attack. Among the dead was a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman.[252] According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was reported to have gone out in the desert to search for his missing father but was sitting in a cafe when he was killed.[253] Human rights groups have raised questions as to why an American citizen was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States is not at war. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki had no connection to terrorism.[253]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

 

[Jhhnn]

So, I take it you were arguing against your fellow dems/libs. I.e., arguing that foreign combatants at GITMO didn't have Constitutional rights?



Sure, I defend GITMO. And, no, that doesn't mean I defend locking up and holding innocent people.

The only "headset" I've exhibited is consistency. I had no Constitutional problems with GITMO and I have none Obama for using drones on a US citizen who takes up arms against the USA.

And I note that you've abandoned any argument about Constitutional principle and now go with emotion.

Fern

Hardly, right up until this moment you hedged your bets with the whole "citizen" schtick-

To the extent is does apply it is in pointing out liberal hypocrisy. I remember a lot of screaming about the rights of those confined to GITMO even though they weren't US citizens. It's odd to now see the same drop the whole 'rights' complaint even though the person in question is a US citizen just because we're talking about Obama.

Still differentiating US citizens from other combatants, even as you claim it's the other side doing it. Nice bit of obfuscation.

While you like this War meme, I don't. It gives too many people too much room to wring their hands in mock horror about some non-sequiter like the fact that an American is a target. For people who actually support the WoT, it's just Hate-Um Obama horseshit, and we both know it. Regardless of his own POV, Obama wages this war at their insistence & the insistence of Congress.

It's sleazy & wrong to try to play both sides of the issue on false premises.

 

[Nebor]

But yet we have gangs on your streets who kill our citizens every day.

The government can not be selective on which group it classifies as a terrorist.

Either everyone who takes up arms against our citizens are terrorist, or nobody is.

Under the governments own logic, and yours, when can we expect drone strikes on the crips, bloods and skinheads? Why do gang members even get trials? Just detain them forever.

There's really no need. They can be reached via conventional means and with relatively little risk. They mainly kill each other, which is why they're not a huge enforcement priority in many places. Reference Syria for a similar situation, ie. douchebags killing each other.

 

[Orignal Earl]

If only the slippery slopes for this stuff where as easy to see as they are in the gun threads

 

[Victorian Gray]

Heh. Nice sensationalist article. The 16 year old? He wasn't the target. Collateral damage in Dubya's war./QUOTE]

GO TEAM GO! RAH! RAH! RAH! GO TEAM GO! RAH! RAH! RAH!

oh yeah, BECAUSE BUSH!!!!!!

 

[werepossum]

Heh. Nice sensationalist article. The 16 year old? He wasn't the target. Collateral damage in Dubya's war.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

SNIP
While you like this War meme, I don't. It gives too many people too much room to wring their hands in mock horror about some non-sequiter like the fact that an American is a target. For people who actually support the WoT, it's just Hate-Um Obama horseshit, and we both know it. Regardless of his own POV, Obama wages this war at their insistence & the insistence of Congress.

It's sleazy & wrong to try to play both sides of the issue on false premises.

If you were about a thousand percent brighter, you could learn to recognize irony. Eventually. Well . . . at least there'd be some chance . . .