Obama and enemy combatants rights

[OutHouse]

so a guy who tries to blow up a airline Obama's admin gives him rights and is not going to be tried as a enemy. however, on the other hand obama is dropping bombs on villages in Pakistan killing not only "suspected terrorist" but also kids. no riights, no trial just BOOM! can somebody explain to me how this works?

 

[SAWYER]

Good question

 

[Red Dawn]

so a guy who tries to blow up a airline Obama's admin gives him rights and is not going to be tried as a enemy. however, on the other hand obama is dropping bombs on villages in Pakistan killing not only "suspected terrorist" but also kids. no riights, no trial just BOOM! can somebody explain to me how this works?

Yeah an armed Predator flies over the village and fires it's ordinance. Any other questions?

 

[heyheybooboo]

so a guy who tries to blow up a airline Obama's admin gives him rights and is not going to be tried as a enemy. however, on the other hand obama is dropping bombs on villages in Pakistan killing not only "suspected terrorist" but also kids. no riights, no trial just BOOM! can somebody explain to me how this works?

Well ... he did work for the CIA.

And I kinda like the image of The Flying Obama shooting Hellfires.

Kinda apocalyptic ....




--

 

[PJABBER]

so a guy who tries to blow up a airline Obama's admin gives him rights and is not going to be tried as a enemy. however, on the other hand obama is dropping bombs on villages in Pakistan killing not only "suspected terrorist" but also kids. no riights, no trial just BOOM! can somebody explain to me how this works?

FWIW, MQ-9 Reapers and Predator Bs use GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missile, the GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) and the AIM-9 Sidewinder for air-to-air encounters. So, there is a pretty good range of weapons options that can be employed.

 

[fskimospy]

so a guy who tries to blow up a airline Obama's admin gives him rights and is not going to be tried as a enemy. however, on the other hand obama is dropping bombs on villages in Pakistan killing not only "suspected terrorist" but also kids. no riights, no trial just BOOM! can somebody explain to me how this works?

That the responsibility of the government changes depending on the situation. For example if a police officer has no other way to apprehend you (like you can run faster than him and get away or whatever) and he has reasonable cause to believe that you are about to murder someone or commit another felony, he can kill you on the spot. Judge, jury, executioner. Once you are in police custody due to the different situation there, they cannot kill you because they have other effective means of dealing with you.

Obama's stance on the rights of detainees has TONS of contradictions in it. Obama's stance on terror suspects' rights is insane and incoherent, but it is that way due to how he structures it AFTER we detain people, not because of this.

EDIT: Also, the US does not exercise jurisdiction over the areas where we are using missiles to blow people up... which is actually exactly the reason why we have to use drones and missiles. Therefore, the Constitution does not apply there and our government owes those individuals exactly zero legal rights.

 

[BladeVenom]

It's OK for Obama to drop bombs on villages, because he's a Democrat and cares more. It's for the children.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

FWIW, MQ-9 Reapers and Predator Bs use GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missile, the GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) and the AIM-9 Sidewinder for air-to-air encounters. So, there is a pretty good range of weapons options that can be employed.

There is a good selection of weapons but in reality after having 100 missions and hitting nothing but dirt, one wedding and a school the ground, target forces are pretty much the only thing that has worked reliably (especially since information has been fucked up so many times before, troops on ground can scout and target properly).

Ground targeting remains the best way to make sure the target is a valid target and the VERY best way to ensure that it's destroyed.

All in all i'd say it's about 500-5000% more reliable, being sure of the lower number and not having the exact number which is probably closer to the higher number.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's OK for Obama to drop bombs on villages, because he's a Democrat and cares more. It's for the children.

At least it's in the right fucking nation.

 

[JEDIYoda]

so a guy who tries to blow up a airline Obama's admin gives him rights and is not going to be tried as a enemy. however, on the other hand obama is dropping bombs on villages in Pakistan killing not only "suspected terrorist" but also kids. no riights, no trial just BOOM! can somebody explain to me how this works?

so why are you comparing two entirely different thing....
Quit with the false outrage. There is no comparrison here.
In fact this topic you are discussing needs to be taken to the Outhouse!!

Sounds tyo me like you need to wait until you get into high school and take a civics class then come back to P&N to play with the big boys!!

 

[PJABBER]

There is a good selection of weapons but in reality after having 100 missions and hitting nothing but dirt, one wedding and a school the ground, target forces are pretty much the only thing that has worked reliably (especially since information has been fucked up so many times before, troops on ground can scout and target properly).

Ground targeting remains the best way to make sure the target is a valid target and the VERY best way to ensure that it's destroyed.

All in all i'd say it's about 500-5000% more reliable, being sure of the lower number and not having the exact number which is probably closer to the higher number.

Maybe operator target identification training in units like the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron has to improve. Or better yet, the optics sub-system gets a major upgrade. Unmanned Aerospace System (UAS) Sensor Operators started getting job specific training in August of last year so I expect we will be seeing improved results pretty soon.

Still, Ground Laser Designator Operators (LDOs) normally have much more time, maybe better optics to acquire targets and situational awareness. Ground optical viewing often better allows the operator to pick out camouflaged objects at a distance and distinguishes the most important targets when several are in view.

I expect most, if not all, of the Pakistan strikes are directed by ground teams or hit targets previously covertly marked.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Maybe operator target identification training in units like the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron has to improve. Or better yet, the optics sub-system gets a major upgrade. Unmanned Aerospace System (UAS) Sensor Operators started getting job specific training in August of last year so I expect we will be seeing improved results pretty soon.

Still, Ground Laser Designator Operators (LDOs) normally have much more time, maybe better optics to acquire targets and situational awareness. Ground optical viewing often better allows the operator to pick out camouflaged objects at a distance and distinguishes the most important targets when several are in view.

I expect most, if not all, of the Pakistan strikes are directed by ground teams or hit targets previously covertly marked.

That's not really the issue at all, the problem has more to do with locating and arming for target on two dimensional imaging and information handling than anything else.

Proper teams targeting proper locations do take a longer time but the hits are always on snap time and on target when the target is there.

Now either is useless unless you want to take out more civilians than terrorists, they don't live in the mountains anymore and they have not been cornered since the troops along with the air support was withdrawn.

You might believe in unmanned airforce but no one in the airforce does.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama didn't "give" any rights to the underwear bomber, at all. Those rights were already in place, enshrined in the Constitution and 200 years of legal precedent. Same as with Timothy McVeigh and those who executed the first WTC bombing.

As for the situation wrt Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the WoT, the Obama Admin has inherited a completely botched job, a cock-up of epic proportions. I'm not really in favor of using drones to attack targets except in situations having rock solid intelligence and where collateral can be held to an absolute minimum. Which would be quite rarely. Substituting technology for valor at the squad level probably creates more enemies than it eliminates. If we weren't willing to take casualties, to have some of our troops make the ultimate sacrifice, we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I am appalled that the Obama Admin has not brought those currently held as detainees to trial of an honest sort. Their calculations are purely political in that regard, being apparently unwilling to take the political flak from revealing Bush Admin policies for the sham and the travesty that they are. If the govt can make a case against a detainee, good, do it. If not, let 'em go. Justice, as defined by the Constitution and the people who wrote it, ratified it, demands nothing less, regardless of the perceived risk involved.

 

[Patranus]

Those rights were already in place, enshrined in the Constitution and 200 years of legal precedent.

You might want to read up on the court cases....

 

[werepossum]

Well ... he did work for the CIA.

And I kinda like the image of The Flying Obama shooting Hellfires.

Kinda apocalyptic ....

--

LMAO! Hey, you didn't think those ears were just for decoration, right? Those babies are for LIFT!

 

[Fear No Evil]

Obama didn't "give" any rights to the underwear bomber, at all. Those rights were already in place, enshrined in the Constitution and 200 years of legal precedent. Same as with Timothy McVeigh and those who executed the first WTC bombing.

Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen. I know this is tough for you guys to understand the difference between him and an enemy soldier who attacks our country.

 

[Sclamoz]

Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen. I know this is tough for you guys to understand the difference between him and an enemy soldier who attacks our country.

and Richard Reid?

 

[Fear No Evil]

and Richard Reid?

What about him?

 

[Carmen813]

Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen. I know this is tough for you guys to understand the difference between him and an enemy soldier who attacks our country.

Do me a favor and re-read the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 6th amendments. If you are going to trumpet the Constitution, you should at least understand what it says. Or just listen to this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA5mnnOMrpM Citizenship doesn't matter when it comes to the right of fair trial.

 

[Sclamoz]

What about him?

Was he a member of al-qaeda that tried to blow up a plane? Was he an american citizen? Was he tried in a US court?

 

[Carmen813]

Double post.

 

[Slick5150]

What about him?

He was tried in a civilian court with a government appointed lawyer defending him, and is currently sitting in a civilian federal prison.

Where was your feigned outrage over that one?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Do me a favor and re-read the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 6th amendments. If you are going to trumpet the Constitution, you should at least understand what it says. Or just listen to this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA5mnnOMrpM Citizenship doesn't matter when it comes to the right of fair trial.

I don't believe I mentioned the Constitution did I? And where did I say they shouldn't get a fair trial?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Was he a member of al-qaeda that tried to blow up a plane? Was he an american citizen? Was he tried in a US court?

I do believe he was British. So my answers would be "Yes" "No" "Yes".

 

[Fear No Evil]

He was tried in a civilian court with a government appointed lawyer defending him, and is currently sitting in a civilian federal prison.

Where was your feigned outrage over that one?

I guess my feigned outrage was posted somewhere else other than Anandtech since I wasn't a member here in 2001. If you are asking my opinion about the case he should have probably been handled by military courts. However, since it was 3 months after 9/11 or so, I don't think people really knew WHAT to do with him.. so they used the civilian system.

We've since learned a lot about handling terrorists and I do not think that using civilian justice is appropriate. Any other decade old cases you'd like me to comment on? Pan Am bombers?