Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.
Rather have a drone take them out then go up and down mountains looking for them and their associates. So if we encounter another american taliban bearing arms against us and opting him out to the next world. I will not shed a tear nor regret killing an american after the fact. You pick up a weapon and start shooting at us then expect to get shot back. Drones make it simpler...cleaner (for my troops and I..no sweat, dirt, and grime)...and worrisome for the enemy. Foreign or domestic I don't care as long as its a lawful kill order.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:I totally agree. I'm very upset how, with no debate, both parties have embraced assassination as an acceptable tool of policy.
The practical ends of killing one man/woman verses the mass slaughter of thousands I think is a worthwhile trade off (assuming that's the actual end, which is a naive assumption to make probably).
But then I shirk most moral questions with the response "Who cares"
Foreign and domestic...domestic include US citizens that baer arms against the US. No different if we were to kill a US citizen in combat fighting with the enemy.
d-usa wrote:Nice seeing that everybody thinks it is peachy that we are killing off citizens without a trial because the president says it is okay.
It happens fairly regularly. Like that gang banger who pulled a gun on the cops, or the guy who held up that bank. Sometimes the government can kill people without trial. Aiding terrorist organizations probably counts.
At least I assume you'r talking bout that guy we had put on the kill list cause he was actively supporting Al-Qaeda. Have there been others?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:I totally agree. I'm very upset how, with no debate, both parties have embraced assassination as an acceptable tool of policy.
It was an acceptable tool in the 70s and 80s and most people don't even know where Laos is, let alone anything about the CIA proxy conflicts surrounding Vietnam. This is just business as usual. The CIA freedom of operation granted in the 70's changed the dynamic of American conflict policy. At least the drone programs target "actual criminals", rather than locales or support networks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.
The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.
What an awesome country we live in.
Are you talking about Anwar? If so his rap sheet was a bit longer than that.
d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.
The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.
What an awesome country we live in.
Yep. Its baffling isn't it?
Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.
I do not see this going to any place good. It is plenty different if you start blowing up homes in the states, eliminating competitors for office, people who believe in freedom of speech and say too much...
I don't really have a problem with the use of targeted assassinations against foreign nationals - I think there are ample legal basis for doing this, such as the AUMF; and the fact the no-assasination rule was by executive order, so the executive can override that with another - I think the killing of US citizens is probably the worst thing the Obama administration has done.
I don't really have a good answer for what to do about an Anwar al-Awlaki type situation, but I don't think what we chose to do was the right thing either. The POTUS is not a king and American citizens have a right to due process that he cannot sign away.
d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.
The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.
What an awesome country we live in.
Yep. Its baffling isn't it?
Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.
There is an article in the OP, has names in it.
Underwear bomber is foreign national who got better treatment than a citizen of this great nation. 16 year old citizen gets killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong day, but that is okay too.
d-usa wrote:And Anwar was still a citizen who has never faced trial.
Out country cannot take the moral high ground when we decide that we don't have to follow the constitution anymore.
The guy had a direct connection to three terrorist plots, one enacted and two failed. He inspired through the "preaching" you're talking about five others. He fled from the united states and would not turn himself in. This isn't a particularly strong moral highground your taking, the dude was responsible for deaths and his day to day routine was spent attempting to become responsible for more of them.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.
If his name is Anwar its him. I don't remember his name XD.
But then I thought that civil trials for terrorists was stupid, so that I'm for killing him without trial regardless of citizenship isn't that inconsistent.
Out country cannot take the moral high ground when we decide that we don't have to follow the constitution anymore.
Sure we can. Its called having your cake and eating it too
And of course that's assuming the moral high ground matters for anything.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.
If his name is Anwar its him. I don't remember his name XD.
But then I thought that civil trials for terrorists was stupid, so that I'm for killing him without trial regardless of citizenship isn't that inconsistent.
Out country cannot take the moral high ground when we decide that we don't have to follow the constitution anymore.
Sure we can. Its called having your cake and eating it too
And of course that's assuming the moral high ground matters for anything.
The constitution isn't an inherently moral document. It's a social contract. It's amoral.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And who is the one that lead us down this path that eventually led to assasinations? Bush.
There is no innocent party in this debate.
Eh. That's not really relevant. I'd rather talk about where we'd like to be instead of how we got here.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And who is the one that lead us down this path that eventually led to assasinations? Bush. There is no innocent party in this debate.
Actually you could probably make a strong argument that the British Empire is responsible. You could make an argument that the Soviets were responsible. You could even make an argument that Bush Sr was responsible. That region had already degraded into sectarian and extremist war before Bush Jr got into office and no country on earth wouldn't respond militarily after a terrorist attack the scale of 9/11. Anwar allowed himself to become radicalized after knowing what an upper class American life was like. He doesn't even have the cover of "not knowing any better" or "growing up around conflict".
d-usa wrote:Underwear bomber is foreign national who got better treatment than a citizen of this great nation.
Underwear bomber was able to be apprehended and wasn't constantly moving in and out of enemy occupied areas overseas. He was also one guy with one bomb, whereas Al-Awlaki was the Charles Manson terrorist, generating propoganda, raising funds, and encouraging people to put on underwear bombs to kill the citizens of this great nation. Taking down a flunkie is easy, taking down Al Capone is not. Capturing him is no easy feat, assuming it is even possible.
Just saying he was a citizen and using that to end the conversation is disingenuous. He was also an enemy leader of a terrorist group engaged in war on the United States, and other countries. We have the right to target enemies in war, but generally shy away from killing citizens, but what happens when the citizen is an enemy leader? It was a tough call and certainly is something to be talked about, but I for one think they made the right call.
d-usa wrote:16 year old citizen gets killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong day, but that is okay too.
Being in the wrong place at the wrong day is how a lot of people die, like those in the Twin Towers.
Ahtman wrote: We have the right to target enemies in war, but generally shy away from killing citizens, but what happens when the citizen is an enemy leader? It was a tough call and certainly is something to be talked about, but I for one think they made the right call.
I'm happy with the result; just not how we got there. al-Awlawki desperately needed a bullet in the head; but the lack of meaningful oversight is what bothers me about that. I don't know what the right answer is exactly though either.
There's this really weird assumption in this thread that the alternatives are between sniping one guy and bombing a whole city... umm, before drones the US wasn't carpet bombing cities because there was this one guy they wanted to get rid of - cities were carpet bombed because they were at war with whole countries.
Back then you'd just plant a car bomb, or disappear a guy out of his room in the middle of the night... now you fire a predator drone at some guy.
The issue is how much this is being done now, and that's really a function of two things - the US flipping the hell out over a terrorist group doing something on their homesoil, and the fact that it's a whole lot easier and safer to launch a missile from a drone than it is to get a team on the ground for an abduction mission/bomb planting.
Part of this I think is that people take the assassination list too far. Its a wonderful way to effectively eliminate people like terrorist leaders, who once removed typically see their organization collapse in on itself. But that's about all its good for. Its a horrible weapon to use against a state entity, or even a domestic crime organization for various reasons. The idea that the government would turn the assassination list on US citizens in the US is what scares people but its a fear that isn't really warranted.
sebster wrote:There's this really weird assumption in this thread that the alternatives are between sniping one guy and bombing a whole city... umm, before drones the US wasn't carpet bombing cities because there was this one guy they wanted to get rid of - cities were carpet bombed because they were at war with whole countries.
Back then you'd just plant a car bomb, or disappear a guy out of his room in the middle of the night... now you fire a predator drone at some guy.
The issue is how much this is being done now, and that's really a function of two things - the US flipping the hell out over a terrorist group doing something on their homesoil, and the fact that it's a whole lot easier and safer to launch a missile from a drone than it is to get a team on the ground for an abduction mission/bomb planting.
It also helps that drone strikes are typically made in hostile territories where more traditional means would be difficult to place. We also don't have the good relations with Pakistan or most North African countries needed for such endeavors. We still dissapear dudes in less explodey regions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Part of this I think is that people take the assassination list too far. Its a wonderful way to effectively eliminate people like terrorist leaders, who once removed typically see their organization collapse in on itself. But that's about all its good for. Its a horrible weapon to use against a state entity, or even a domestic crime organization for various reasons. The idea that the government would turn the assassination list on US citizens in the US is what scares people but its a fear that isn't really warranted.
We attempted several assassinations of communist political and movement leaders in south america in the 70s and 80s. The CIA assassinates people. It's what it does. At least this kill list has presidential oversight rather than plausible deniability.
ShumaGorath wrote:We attempted several assassinations of communist political and movement leaders in south america in the 70s and 80s. The CIA assassinates people. It's what it does. At least this kill list has presidential oversight rather than plausible deniability.
South American isn't the United States of America, which is kind of my point. In this day and age, the fear that the government is going to turn around and start popping of US citizens for arbitrary reasons on a regular basis is unwarranted. The CIA isn't allowed to operate in the US, and I'm unaware of the FBI having an assassination program (not that I really follow the FBI).
LordofHats wrote:The CIA isn't allowed to operate in the US, and I'm unaware of the FBI having an assassination program (not that I really follow the FBI).
That would make for a very badass reboot of X-files and Millenium
We can pitch it to Viacom. We'll have a spunky female sidekick, a nerdy protagonist who likes her, and we'll throw in an ex-husband for mellow drama. Oh well need a gay supporting character. Gotta stay fashionable
LordofHats wrote:We can pitch it to Viacom. We'll have a spunky female sidekick, a nerdy protagonist who likes her, and we'll throw in an ex-husband for mellow drama. Oh well need a gay supporting character. Gotta stay fashionable
Just keep the sickeningly sweet child actors out, and I'll watch it.
LordofHats wrote:We can pitch it to Viacom. We'll have a spunky female sidekick, a nerdy protagonist who likes her, and we'll throw in an ex-husband for mellow drama. Oh well need a gay supporting character. Gotta stay fashionable
God no, this is the X-files and Millenium we're talking about, the greatest shows of my childhood (along SeaQuest)...
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?
No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.
Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
LordofHats wrote:Part of this I think is that people take the assassination list too far. Its a wonderful way to effectively eliminate people like terrorist leaders, who once removed typically see their organization collapse in on itself. But that's about all its good for. Its a horrible weapon to use against a state entity, or even a domestic crime organization for various reasons. The idea that the government would turn the assassination list on US citizens in the US is what scares people but its a fear that isn't really warranted.
I think you're probably right that people are ultimately only concerned about such weapons being turned on themselves. Which, frankly, speaks volumes about how gakky people are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:It also helps that drone strikes are typically made in hostile territories where more traditional means would be difficult to place. We also don't have the good relations with Pakistan or most North African countries needed for such endeavors. We still dissapear dudes in less explodey regions.
True. So that can be added as a third reason why this kind of thing has become so much more common now. The biggest one really is capability, though, drones allow you to kill specific people in a way that's way cheaper and easier than what was available before, and without the risk of an operation going wrong and getting your own people killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?
No, but pretending those are the only two options is stupid. You can improve your capability to capture other people (by improving your relations with the country in question). You can limit the effectiveness of the individual without killing/capturing him - shut down bank accounts, make it impossible for him to leave the country/province in which he is safe.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?
No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.
Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
You don't just get to make up what you'd like the constitution to say.
Also, as much as I admire the US for its strong belief in its constitution, it seems to have led to a very strange mindset in which the only rights are those in the constitution... which is a big problem when it leads to the unstated conclusion that people who aren't American, and therefore not granted the rights of the constitution, seem to have no rights at all. As if blowing someone up without a trial is only a problem if they deserve US legal protection.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
You don't just get to make up what you'd like the constitution to say.
Also, as much as I admire the US for its strong belief in its constitution, it seems to have led to a very strange mindset in which the only rights are those in the constitution...
Which is actually an argument that was made by a few founding fathers who didn't like the idea of the Bill of Rights.
which is a big problem when it leads to the unstated conclusion that people who aren't American, and therefore not granted the rights of the constitution, seem to have no rights at all. As if blowing someone up without a trial is only a problem if they deserve US legal protection.
It has been a creep that has been happening for a while in regards to how we treat terrorists
Originally it was "the Constitution only applies to people in the USA" while we were fighting them.
Then when they were in prison on US land it became "the Constitution only applies to US Citizens and not to everybody in the US".
Not it is "it only applies if you behave yourself". We don't suspend the constitution for people that assasinate presidents. We didn't suspend the constitutional rights for McVeigh after he blew up the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. Your constitutional rights are your constitutional rights, even if you hate the USA.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
You don't just get to make up what you'd like the constitution to say.
Also, as much as I admire the US for its strong belief in its constitution, it seems to have led to a very strange mindset in which the only rights are those in the constitution... which is a big problem when it leads to the unstated conclusion that people who aren't American, and therefore not granted the rights of the constitution, seem to have no rights at all. As if blowing someone up without a trial is only a problem if they deserve US legal protection.
What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...
Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...
Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.
I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.
It's always been that way, every single wartime president has suspended the right of habeas corpus. Also we most certainly suspended the rights of presidential assassins, the military tribunal following Lincolns assassination was one of the worst examples of a kangaroo court in US history. Honestly the constitution is really not an effective mean of guaranteeing your rights as every administration has violated some part or another( some being worse then other)
Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...
Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.
I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.
Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...
Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.
I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.
Argumentation =/= legal argumentation, which should somehow be expected on a Wargaming forum. But then it's so much easier to make stupid comments like yours.
Except that you seem to making the argument that the US is allowed to do these things, under our own laws were not. You were using legal term and rules that have definitions, you can't then decide that you weren't being serious just because you lose an argument. (im sure there's some fancy latin term to describe it)
Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...
Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.
I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.
Argumentation =/= legal argumentation, which should somehow be expected on a Wargaming forum. But then it's so much easier to make stupid comments like yours.
Except that you seem to making the argument that the US is allowed to do these things, under our own laws were not. You were using legal term and rules that have definitions, you can't then decide that you weren't being serious just because you lose an argument. (im sure there's some fancy latin term to describe it)
Well, if every argument basing itself on terms that have a legal equivalance should end up in front of a court, we wouldn't ever get things done. Is your pharmacists giving you a legal advice when he gives you a prescription? Because that's a legal term... things can be sooo confusing sometimes...
My coworkers and I kicked this around when the al-Awlaki thing went down. Essentially you can only do this in the US if you were present at the beginning of the trial, like if you appear, it looks like it's going badly and you flee the country - you can still be convicted even if not present.
I know Dog the Bounty Hunter is a rough dude, but I suspect even he wouldn't go into Yemen. Which is a shame, because there are a lot of AQ people there that really need to be sprayed in the face with the mace they use on bears (go with Christ, brah).
Not according to rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 43 provides that a defendant shall be present
at the arraignment,
at the time of the plea,
at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict and
at the imposition of sentence.
However, the following exceptions are included in the Rule:
the defendant waives his right to be present if he voluntarily leaves the trial after it has commenced,
if he persists in disruptive conduct after being warned that such conduct will cause him to be removed from the courtroom,
a corporation need not be present, but may be represented by counsel,
in prosecutions for misdemeanors, the court may permit arraignment, plea, trial, and imposition of sentence in the defendant's absence with his written consent, and
the defendant need not be present at a conference or argument upon a question of law or at a reduction of sentence under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
My coworkers and I kicked this around when the al-Awlaki thing went down. Essentially you can only do this in the US if you were present at the beginning of the trial, like if you appear, it looks like it's going badly and you flee the country - you can still be convicted even if not present.
I know Dog the Bounty Hunter is a rough dude, but I suspect even he wouldn't go into Yemen. Which is a shame, because there are a lot of AQ people there that really need to be sprayed in the face with the mace they use on bears (go with Christ, brah).
Even I may prefer a drone-launched missle to the face if my other option is having to drive in a car with Dog, just saying.
youbedead wrote:You know I'm kinda surprised we didn't just ask the Israeli's to do it, I mean their good at this kinda thing and it avoids all the fuss.
I think Israeli's killing US citizens might be the thing that finally pushes them over the "Israel cannot do anything wrong" cliff.
Not denying that they would be good at it though. Whatever solution they would have come up with would have been a lot more subtle than the old drone to the face as well.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?
No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.
Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1.obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2.taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA); 4.accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7.conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?
No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.
Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1.obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA); 2.taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA); 3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA); 4.accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA); 5.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA); 6.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA); 7.conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
How's that for a legal argument.
Must have missed the part where good old al-Qaeda became a state. Good try though.
Conviction for an act of Treason would require a trial as well, something that didn't happen.
I remember we were talking about this when he was first killed, and it's surprisingly hard to lose your US citizenship, turns out. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
Lieberman, iirc, sponsored a bill to expand the last item on Kovnik's list to include citizens suspected of terrorism abroad.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?
No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.
Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.
I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.
The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1.obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA); 2.taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA); 3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA); 4.accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA); 5.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA); 6.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA); 7.conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
How's that for a legal argument.
Must have missed the part where good old al-Qaeda became a state. Good try though.
Conviction for an act of Treason would require a trial as well, something that didn't happen.
I have to say I would've thought a military panel to be able to declare someone guilty of treason in absentia. You could still argue that Al-Qaeda was a political subdivision of many states, I guess... (art.2)
Which would then require some proof that the person had sworn such allegiance or oath, but that's surely common practice amongts terrorists... ? And easier to prove then actual treason in front of a court.
High treason should be a reason to revoke citizenship IF the treason was in the name of an enemy of the nation, i.e. AQ.
And, I'll give you the benefit that Americans IN America should be arrested and tried in court. If it's an American in another country, extradition may not be possible and thus would need to be Judge Dredd'd by a marine sniper.
I see no issue with killing off known enemy leaders in order to spare a city or town from complete bombardment. I'm pretty sure those people in the city would agree to just snipe him and not blow their town to gak.
youbedead wrote:You know I'm kinda surprised we didn't just ask the Israeli's to do it, I mean their good at this kinda thing and it avoids all the fuss.
I think Israeli's killing US citizens might be the thing that finally pushes them over the "Israel cannot do anything wrong" cliff.
Not denying that they would be good at it though. Whatever solution they would have come up with would have been a lot more subtle than the old drone to the face as well.
See that's the point no one would have known, he'd just disappear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote:High treason should be a reason to revoke citizenship IF the treason was in the name of an enemy of the nation, i.e. AQ.
And, I'll give you the benefit that Americans IN America should be arrested and tried in court. If it's an American in another country, extradition may not be possible and thus would need to be Judge Dredd'd by a marine sniper.
I see no issue with killing off known enemy leaders in order to spare a city or town from complete bombardment. I'm pretty sure those people in the city would agree to just snipe him and not blow their town to gak.
Except that Treason is one of the few crimes that the constitution explicitly states the requirements for, and Anwar did not mean those requirements, nor was he tried in a court of law meaning he was not convicted of treason
Until they target Wienerdogs, then you will regret doing nothing .
True dat. The wiener legions are mean.[u]
Then they came for the wiener dogs, but I was not a wiener dog so I did not speak out.
Fortunately the wiener dogs had been preparing to take over the world for decades and went through them like gak through a goose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Nice seeing that everybody thinks it is peachy that we are killing off citizens without a trial because the president says it is okay.
Citizens in another country trying to kill US soldiers. In classical terms they were what you would call "the enemy" to be killed, and "traitors" if we stopped long enough not to kill them, thus saving them for a more public hanging. So no, no problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Foreign and domestic...domestic include US citizens that baer arms against the US. No different if we were to kill a US citizen in combat fighting with the enemy.
Indeed, we had a minor tiffle a century or so back that had lots of domestic assassination...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.
The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.
What an awesome country we live in.
if you don't like it, vote Republican. Romney has said anything about mob style hits.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And who is the one that lead us down this path that eventually led to assasinations? Bush.
There is no innocent party in this debate.
Finally. Its all Bush's fault!
Lincoln killed a lot of US citizens. Eisenhower sent in combat troops to quell free speech rallies around a school. (translation sent in the 82nd to enforce the SCOTUS decision killing separate but equal - YEA REPUBLICANS)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and another thing. I have seen insurgents in their teens we caught fighting us. I also seen teens on the ground lifeless after an engagement.
Could be, aLthough I thought it was the 82nd. My google fu is failing to find which unit was actually, although I did find his speech to the nation. Very cool.
Eisnhower, a titan. We need a new titan, instead of being governed by lesser men.
Closest thing to a Esinhower Titan we have today is Colin Powell. He would do the same thing as Obama authorizing the kill in a drone strike on high profile targets. I would believe both would be against arming a drone with laser marker and having a laser guided missile hit the target. Hellfire missile does get the job done with its smaller kill radius then having a block taking out.
Yes. Part of the issue with this guy whose name I still don't remember off the top of my head is that the procedure for putting someone on the assassination list secret. Maybe there was a careful review of his situation before he was put on it, maybe there wasn't. Maybe there was some kind of trial, maybe there wasn't. We don't really know.
But of course its not the first time the US government has killed US citizens before...
Not it is "it only applies if you behave yourself". We don't suspend the constitution for people that assasinate presidents. We didn't suspend the constitutional rights for McVeigh after he blew up the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. Your constitutional rights are your constitutional rights, even if you hate the USA.
SO you would have resolved the Civil War by trying every member of the Confederate Army before battle? Wonder how that would have worked out for the jolly old Union.
Must have missed the part where good old al-Qaeda became a state. Good try though.
Part of the ongoing problem with Al-Qaeda and organizations like them is that they defy most laws about warfare because those laws were directly worded to deal with war between nation states. This falls into a gray zone where no law exists to deal with it. But honestly, once you've openly admitting to engaging in organized (or even disorganized) violence against your own state, from overseas, with the help of a foreign fighting force, is it really that different from a practical stand point? Taking arms against a state is taking arms against a state and if capture isn't a practical option...
Except that Treason is one of the few crimes that the constitution explicitly states the requirements for, and Anwar did not mean those requirements, nor was he tried in a court of law meaning he was not convicted of treason
At what point do we really need to just admit this guy didn't need a trail? Is it after he plots with an anti-American extremist organization to kill US citizens or after he freely and openly admits to plotting with an anti-American extremist organization to kill US citizens on camera, or after its aired on TV and the internt?
I can understand people debating the legality of the US assassinating US citizens without trial, but come on. If a man walks in front of a TV and spouts off all the things he's done, do we really need to be that concerned? Maybe its just me
I will admit that he didn't need a trial the moment he formally renounced his citizenship, which he never did. If the constitution doesn't apply just tear the thing up and quit pretending we care about our own laws. We can't have it both ways, if we don't play by our rules then why should anybody else.
d-usa wrote:If the constitution doesn't apply just tear the thing up and quit pretending we care about our own laws.
The Constitution doesn't establish a criteria for losing Citizenship or dealing with citizens who take up arms against the state in warfare. Generally 'kill um' has been a fairly practical way of dealing with the problem since the Whiskey Rebellion.
We can't have it both ways,
Countries have it both ways all the time. I believe its called politics
if we don't play by our rules then why should anybody else.
Why should anyone play by our rules even if we play by them? Furthermore why should we care when they'd never play by our rules in the first place?
Ouze wrote:I don't really have a good answer for what to do about an Anwar al-Alwlaki type situation, but I don't think what we chose to do was the right thing either. The POTUS is not a king and American citizens have a right to due process that he cannot sign away.
I have an idea, maybe if some guy is talking about how bad we are, we could try to persuade people he's full of crap by talking too?
I have a co-worker at work who keeps telling people I am violent, prone to anger, and am out to get him. He wanted me fired. Of course, this is false. So I waited until he was leaving the building alone and I shot him. Problem solved right? Now its obvious that he was just telling lies about me.
Edit: I have no problem killing off enemy combatants in a combat zone through any means necessary. That's part of war. The problem comes when you're not technically in a war, but just doing cloak and dagger type stuff. It also becomes much more problematic when the target is an American citizen during a time of "Not War".
sebster wrote:There's this really weird assumption in this thread that the alternatives are between sniping one guy and bombing a whole city... umm, before drones the US wasn't carpet bombing cities because there was this one guy they wanted to get rid of - cities were carpet bombed because they were at war with whole countries.
Back then you'd just plant a car bomb, or disappear a guy out of his room in the middle of the night... now you fire a predator drone at some guy.
The issue is how much this is being done now, and that's really a function of two things - the US flipping the hell out over a terrorist group doing something on their homesoil, and the fact that it's a whole lot easier and safer to launch a missile from a drone than it is to get a team on the ground for an abduction mission/bomb planting.
Actually that's an interesting point. This kind of assassination has been taking place for as long as there have been nation states, but the methodology and how they are carried out has changed.
I watched a documentary recently that was about the classic spy movie, 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy', and was interviewing a lot of ex-intelligence types. They said that since the end of the cold war, with budget cut backs and a change of culture within the espionage field, the amount of covert operations going on have dropped significantly. Back when the US-Ruskie operations were going on, intelligence agencies on both sides would spend literally years infiltrating agents, trying to turn people on the other side (using all means) a real game of cat and mouse as each agency tried to outwit the other and gain dominance. It's something that makes fascinating reading nowadays in any case! But the point being that it was covert - you would never hear about the files that had gone missing, the guy who has died of a heart attack in his bed in suspicious circumstances etc.
But, apparently since the end of the Cold War, and the change of the international pecking order and extension of power, the CIA and US government just hasn't bothered with that kind of time consuming and costly covert exercise. Think someone might be planning a terrorist act, or otherwise acting against your interest? Send in the drones. I wouldn't compare it to 'carpet bombing a city to get one person', and it's startling the number of people who think that was the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, but it is impossible to deny that there are not a great deal more civilian deaths as a result of these drone strikes. And mistakes because of poor intelligence, if some Pakistani reports are to be believed.
A couple of interesting conclusions that can be determined from the increase of Drone attacks, and the more visible nature of these assassination missions
1) The change in the nature of world power, and the focus of that power. Now more than ever it is in the middle east. The previous 'counter-weight', that created the bi-lateral balance between the US and USSR has gone, and while Russia and to an extent China are major players, in terms of reach of power, no one even comes close to the US.
2) American doesn't give a feth about what anyone else thinks, they are absolutely brazen about it - and why should they be otherwise? Pakistan can complain all they want, but what are they going to do except throw their arms in the air and call the US nasty names? Since the fall of the USSR, as one political commentator put it, the US is the hammer and everyone else is a nail. Obama has been positively passive compared to his predecessor, with Bush managing two separate major military operations and invasions of foreign soil within his tenure, I believe a first for any US president.
Edit: I have no problem killing off enemy combatants in a combat zone through any means necessary. That's part of war. The problem comes when you're not technically in a war, but just doing cloak and dagger type stuff. It also becomes much more problematic when the target is an American citizen during a time of "Not War".
We are in very dangerous waters here.
Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since. As rhetorical as the "War on Terror" is the idea that war is something that only occurs between opposed states is not only antiquated as an idea, but historically false.
What we are in is very ambiguous waters, but world globalization and all, the current laws that are used to resolve societies ills are likely to become increasingly ineffective, beyond just the matter of how to deal with aggressive foreign non-state enemy forces.
2) American doesn't give a feth about what anyone else thinks, they are absolutely brazen about it - and why should they be otherwise? Pakistan can complain all they want, but what are they going to do except throw their arms in the air and call the US nasty names? Since the fall of the USSR, as one political commentator put it, the US is the hammer and everyone else is a nail. Obama has been positively passive compared to his predecessor, with Bush managing two separate major military operations and invasions of foreign soil within his tenure, I believe a first for any US president.
I like what is said here. Also I think you're right about Bush. Unless I'm just being forgetful or am missing some obscure conflict, he is the only US President to engage in military action on the soil of two different states (and all in his first term too).
Edit: I have no problem killing off enemy combatants in a combat zone through any means necessary. That's part of war. The problem comes when you're not technically in a war, but just doing cloak and dagger type stuff. It also becomes much more problematic when the target is an American citizen during a time of "Not War".
We are in very dangerous waters here.
Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since. As rhetorical as the "War on Terror" is the idea that war is something that only occurs between opposed states is not only antiquated as an idea, but historically false.
What we are in is very ambiguous waters, but world globalization and all, the current laws that are used to resolve societies ills are likely to become increasingly ineffective, beyond just the matter of how to deal with aggressive foreign non-state enemy forces.
2) American doesn't give a feth about what anyone else thinks, they are absolutely brazen about it - and why should they be otherwise? Pakistan can complain all they want, but what are they going to do except throw their arms in the air and call the US nasty names? Since the fall of the USSR, as one political commentator put it, the US is the hammer and everyone else is a nail. Obama has been positively passive compared to his predecessor, with Bush managing two separate major military operations and invasions of foreign soil within his tenure, I believe a first for any US president.
I like what is said here. Also I think you're right about Bush. Unless I'm just being forgetful or am missing some obscure conflict, he is the only US President to engage in military action on the soil of two different states (and all in his first term too).
Truman fought the Japanese, the North Koreans and the Chinese in three separate countries (not counting the Phillipines, etc.) after he was elevated to President on the death of Roosevelt.
LordofHats wrote:[SO you would have resolved the Civil War by trying every member of the Confederate Army before battle? Wonder how that would have worked out for the jolly old Union.
Yes, because someone actually suggested this. Perhaps lets try arguing what was actually said instead of erecting enormous strawmen and then whaling on them.
LordofHats wrote:Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since.
No, I was in New York. Not too sure why that's relevant, since we have a civilian-led military.
LordofHats wrote:Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since. As rhetorical as the "War on Terror" is the idea that war is something that only occurs between opposed states is not only antiquated as an idea, but historically false.
Well, war needs to actually be declared by congress. Congress hasn't done that, so we're not at war.
Ouze wrote:Yes, because someone actually suggested this. Perhaps lets try arguing what was actually said instead of erecting enormous strawmen and then whaling on them.
That's not a strawman at all. The point of the statement is that "the US can't kill citizens without a trial" is not a valid argument. The US has done it since day 1 (Whiskey Rebellion), did it again and en masse in the Civil War, and on a regular basis whenever the immediate danger of letting someone live warrants their death.
I'm also pointing out the absurdity of demanding due process every time a citizen proses an immediate danger to other citizens. Especially when its impractical to actually exercise due process at all.
LordofHats wrote:No, I was in New York. Not too sure why that's relevant, since we have a civilian-led military.
Its relevant because the Army doesn't load streets down to the residential areas of a military base with armed soldiers and vehicles and have engines audible from a mile away at a nearby airbase so it can go on a dandy stroll. It also doesn't deploy divisions to play cloak and danger with the Afghanis (nor does it start calling up the NG). To claim the fighting against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is "not a war" is absurd.
Well, war needs to actually be declared by congress. Congress hasn't done that, so we're not at war.
Police Action/War... Funny how those rhetorical devices work out. You know, being invented so the President can engage in war without Congressional permission.
I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.
I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?
No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.
If a US citizen takes up arms against the government by allying himself with another government,I believe they are to be considered as renoucing their citizenship.
Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.
I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.
Easy E wrote:II'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.
No one does. But you're not engaged in violent actions against the US government and its citizens (I assume ) and hiding in a foreign state, and assuming that the US government wants to kill that guy therefore they might someday kill you is an irrational fear. Al-Awlaki (Finally remembered his name!) did a lot more than say things the administration didn't like.
Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.
I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.
Oh come off it. As if you would end up on the death list because you said something that wasn't popular!
You get killed if you do really serious gak.
How about I cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue?
The same people that are slating Obama over this no doubt fething love it when he gets some Pakistani/Egyptian/Osama Bin Laden and blows the fether up. Indeed, several million Americans embarrassed themselves by going into the street and and hooting and hollering about Bin Laden getting killed. Like they were at a God damn magic show. I bet most of them were ultra right, tea party types as well.
You know I'm right, your not going to see liberals and Greenpeace activists cheering peoples death in the street like they just won the superbowl are you? The guy deserved it sure, Im glad the fether got ventilated, but I wouldn't go and dance in the street like I was at a tailgate party, it just makes you look like you have the mental age of a schoolboy.
Anyway, only one thing determines if you deserve to get slotted or blown up, and that's if your a horrible mother fether or not. Why on earth should the accident of your geographic location at birth have anything to do with it?
I mean, really? Why should it?
If you are a slimy terrorist mother fether who is happy to blow the gak out of innocent people, then I say you deserve to get your legs separated from your arse via the medium of high explosive. feth em. I don't care if they are born in Iran or Illinois.
You know for a fact that people dont get green lit for assassination unless it really does serve. Find me a teenage American who gets killed for making a "Obama is a gak president" website, and Ill change my mind, but you know for a fact It wouldnt happen, so why pretend things are otherwise?
Seriously.. an American on a kill list because he said something the "current" president didn't like. You don't even believe that yourself do you? So why say it?
No, I was in New York. Not too sure why that's relevant, since we have a civilian-led military.
82nd is a short notice deployment division. We can have boots on ground in under 8 hrs. In fact a brigade of troops with everything it needs to fight a war in 8 hrs.....10 hrs...we have to clear the runway to land the following on units.(2/82 AVN an example) SO basically everyone on Ft Bragg..82nd and 18th ABN Corp were quite itching to take on a nation for 9/11. Also I'm sure everybody and Gawd knows that civilians do not lead military units into combat. POTUS gives go order and we go under military command structure.
Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.
I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.
Do you think that is more likely to happen now than 10 years ago?
Only time I'm sure we see drone attacks in the US is the citizens go up in arms and atempt to overthrow the duly elected gov't. Which better not happen because I be called back into military service which would really pissed me off
Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.
I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.
Do you think that is more likely to happen now than 10 years ago?
In the old days, they at least tried to pretend it didn't happen, so would have to go through the effort of a cover-up and plausible deniability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.
I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.
indeed was was the pr guy and major player in a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of US citizens. You're what again?
Lets be clear who we're talking about:
Anwar al-Aulaqi (also spelled al-Awlaki; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American[8] and Yemeni imam who was an engineer and educator by training.[9][10] According to U.S. government officials, he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved with planning operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.[2][6][11][12][13][14][15] With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet",[16][17] though Bin Laden himself reportedly held Aulaqi in low esteem.[18] Many of his videos have subsequently been removed from YouTube after a request from the US Congress.[19]
U.S. officials say that Al-Aulaqi spoke with and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[20] accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[21][22] and "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[23][24][25] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack. The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[26][27]
According to U.S. officials, al-Aulaqi was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda in 2009.[28][29] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[30][31] In April 2010, American President Obama authorized al-Aulaqi's targeted killing.[32][33][34] The targeted killing of an American citizen was an unprecedented Presidential order which al-Aulaqi's father and civil rights groups unsuccessfully challenged in court.[32][34][35] Officials stated that the "imminent threat" international legal standard is used to add names to the C.I.A.'s list of targets.[33]
Al-Aulaqi was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[26] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft in Yemen to search for and kill him,[36] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[37] before he was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[38] Two weeks later Al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was also killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[39][40][41] Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar, made an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[42]
lol, since when are drone strikes Obama's invention?
In contrast, the CIA’s drone program in the tribal areas of Pakistan utilizes weaponized UAVs primarily in hunter-killer missions. This program, begun under the George W. Bush Administration as part of the GWOT, uses drones primarily in “search and destroy” missions aimed at terrorism suspects and Taliban leadership in Pakistan. One important difference between the two programs is that while the military program operates exclusively in recognized combat zones, the CIA program flies drones over civilian areas as well.
--http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144
Oh, I forgot, it's election time soon. The Truth Distortion Committee is hard at work again.
Lynata wrote:lol, since when are drone strikes Obama's invention?
In contrast, the CIA’s drone program in the tribal areas of Pakistan utilizes weaponized UAVs primarily in hunter-killer missions. This program, begun under the George W. Bush Administration as part of the GWOT, uses drones primarily in “search and destroy” missions aimed at terrorism suspects and Taliban leadership in Pakistan. One important difference between the two programs is that while the military program operates exclusively in recognized combat zones, the CIA program flies drones over civilian areas as well.
--http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144
Oh, I forgot, it's election time soon. The Truth Distortion Committee is hard at work again.
To be fair, conservatives and moderates are pretty much totally okay with Obama using drones to kill enemy combatants (even if they are US Citizens). It's only the far left that has a problem with it.
I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.
Wow, I see a lot of allegedly and according to U.S. Officials in there. The only concrete thing I see is that he had a blog, Facebook page, and YouTube videos. He called for Jihad and violence against the US in these venues. (Is that any different than calling for violent revolution against the government? How about succession from the Union?)
So basically, he said a lot of things that the US/President didn't like. Some other people listened to him and did things that were violent. Therefore, he must be killed. That makes perfect sense... in a revenge thriller by Tom Clancy.
However, whether you like the speech or not, he was still a US citizen. Granted, I'm no lawyer, and possibly don't "get it"; but killing him does not sit well with me. Call me old-fashioned. Johnny Walker "American Taliban" Lind got a trial, so should Al-Maliki.
I'm a US citizen. I could have a FaceBook page, Youtube page, and blog. I could say things about the US/President that they did not like. Other people could act on those things violently. I Icould now be blown up by a Hellfire missile on a Drone by the President.
Is it likely? No. Should it be possible? No.
I'm interested to know why he DOESN'T have a blank check to kill American citizens?
We can't have a conversation when you make such statements. Thats like saying the only info you have that Goebbels (yea I went there) was a bad guy are some radio blogs he had.
FFS, guys, we determined the guys name was Anwar al-Awlaki back on the first page. I often think some of you guys don't really read or think about what you're responding to, especially with this weird " Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns" type jingoistic posts for the last page here, but the facts so many of you have failed to grasp such a simple and elementary fact really nails that home to me.
Ouze wrote:I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.
Sure, though I don't think it is quite that simple. There is a process in place and the President can't just throw the paperboy's name on a Kill or Capture list because he hasn't been delivering on time through Presidential fiat. It certainly could use more transparency, to be sure. I think we should have a better understanding of how the list is generated. I understand that they can't release all the evidence used to come to the decision, but they can at least talk about the committees and standards that the names pass through to determine if they make such a distinguished list.
Easy E wrote:
I'm interested to know why he DOESN'T have a blank check to kill American citizens?
Again, why the obsession with where the target happens to be born?
If the powers that be decide that someone presents a clear threat, I dont care if he is from England or Egypt, they can wax the mother fether.
I could respect your opinion if you were a pacifist and dont agree with killing ANYONE, but I doubt you are.
If you would happily sign off on killing a fething Iranian or a Turk or a Jordanian for the exact same gak, then who gives a gak where the guy happens to have been born? Your deeds condemn you, not the geographic accident that happened to have spawned you in North America.
It's good when scum get ventilated, who cares where they happen to have been dropped off by Mom?
Ouze wrote:I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.
Sure, though I don't think it is quite that simple. There is a process in place and the President can't just throw the paperboy's name on a Kill or Capture list because he hasn't been delivering on time through Presidential fiat. It certainly could use more transparency, to be sure. I think we should have a better understanding of how the list is generated. I understand that they can't release all the evidence used to come to the decision, but they can at least talk about the committees and standards that the names pass through to determine if they make such a distinguished list.
Yes, this is reasonable.
I accept that there could be a situation where there is an imminent thread to the United States, one that requires lethal force to resolve, even against an American citizen. I also accept that, at least with Anwar al-Awlaki, there was a AUMF that sort of kind of authorized it. My concern is that now that this precedent has been set, just like with all government powers in the history of ever it's now going to be abused to situations that the AUMF doesn't cover. Ultimately it shouldn't just be, in my opinion, the POTUS and a few guys he appointed who make that call. There has to be some kind of check on that power by another branch, or ideally, both other branches.
Easy E wrote:
I'm interested to know why he DOESN'T have a blank check to kill American citizens?
Again, why the obsession with where the target happens to be born?
If the powers that be decide that someone presents a clear threat, I dont care if he is from England or Egypt, they can wax the mother fether.
I could respect your opinion if you were a pacifist and dont agree with killing ANYONE, but I doubt you are.
If you would happily sign off on killing a fething Iranian or a Turk or a Jordanian for the exact same gak, then who gives a gak where the guy happens to have been born? Your deeds condemn you, not the geographic accident that happened to have spawned you in North America.
It's good when scum get ventilated, who cares where they happen to have been dropped off by Mom?
Well, US citizens have certain rights is what he's getting at. I think he's trying (and failing) to get to is to compare this step in similar fashion to Latin American dictatorships, where opponents of the government get wacked or generally disappeared. That is a concern. However, wacking US nationals actively on site with the enemy and publicly involved with such - thats completely different.
So, if we managed to get a bead on Tokyo Rose, and knew she was in fact a US citizen, the OP wouldn't want the shot to be made?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Shh, they're busy bashing Obama, no logic will stop them.
mattyrm wrote: Again, why the obsession with where the target happens to be born?
Speaking only for myself, this thread is sort of a logic game, where we're arguing over what is legal under US law (and should be), so where the target was born is hugely important within that framework.
Morally, you're right though. It shouldn't make a difference.
Easy E wrote:Wow, I see a lot of allegedly and according to U.S. Officials in there.
Of course it is allegedly, he never had a civil trial in the US. Damnedest thing, he never would show up for court even with all the invitations that were sent. If he had shown up and demanded a trial we would have given him one. Instead he chose to hide out in the mountains in a foreign country and be the mouthpiece of a terrorist organization. He raised funds for terrorists and explicitly encouraged people to kill other people. We couldn't bring him in but we couldn't allow him to go on being a terrorist leader. Sucks about his kid, but then when you are a known and hunted terrorist leader and you keep your family around you, that has a way of happening. In a perfect world we would have been able to capture and bring him to trial, but the reality of the logistics of such an event made it impossible. He did have the trial in Yemen where he was found guilty and sentenced, so it wasn't 'allegedly' there.
Melissia wrote:Also conservatives jumping on the bandwagon to bash Obama for it.
I read lots of weird things on the Economist's comments sections. Like claiming that Obama somehow caused the LIBOR scandal.
Wow, there's a not subtle attempt to throw in some democrat talking points for no particular reason. If you bother to read the thread you'll see the OP is not exactly a right winger, and that there aren't other right wingers actually supporting him.
Ancient Budha say, when the crazy rightwingers are defending your candidate, shut the hell up and let them do it.
The fact of the matter is, lets be honest, one minute they call him a socialist, next thing he's like Hitler cos he kills Americans, one minute he is too weak, next he is too headstrong. Its a crock of gak.
They would be cheering this gak if it was Bush doing the killing.
I hated Obama 4 years ago, he's getting voted for this time around.. the endless gak the Tea party and their idiotic chums throw out has been so laughable they have made me embrace the guy!
Ouze wrote:My concern is that now that this precedent has been set, just like with all government powers in the history of ever it's now going to be abused to situations that the AUMF doesn't cover. Ultimately it shouldn't just be, in my opinion, the POTUS and a few guys he appointed who make that call. There has to be some kind of check on that power by another branch, or ideally, both other branches.
I agree, I just find the 'I post on Facebook so my government is going to try and kill me' kind of silly. It removes all context from the incident, and oddly, makes the person compare themselves to a terrorist.
there's a criminal...we all know about a criminal...and then there's a enemy combatant. One falls under the constitution/Bill of Rights and the other falls under RoE. Its two different world. I've helped and/or killed insurgents but I'm not facing murder chrages and infact been awarded for my efforts to eliminate enemy combatants. A US enemy combatant loses his constitutional rights when he bears arms against the US since he just now enter a whole new ring.
mattyrm wrote: The fact of the matter is, lets be honest, one minute they call him a socialist, next thing he's like Hitler cos he kills Americans, one minute he is too weak, next he is too headstrong. Its a crock of gak.
They would be cheering this gak if it was Bush doing the killing.
I hated Obama 4 years ago, he's getting voted for this time around.. the endless gak the Tea party and their idiotic chums throw out has been so laughable they have made me embrace the guy!
They are cheering. Its the left occupymykeister crowd that seems to be having a problem.
Easy E wrote:Wow, I see a lot of allegedly and according to U.S. Officials in there.
Of course it is allegedly, he never had a civil trial in the US. Damnedest thing, he never would show up for court even with all the invitations that were sent. If he had shown up and demanded a trial we would have given him one.
Melissia wrote:Also makes them look like they're hyperactively overreacting.
It makes them look dishonest and fething childish.
Its the same as "Obama once ate dog in Kenya" being transformed into "Obama ate my daughters puppy" It is total fething nonsense. Nobody realistically thinks that intelligence led strikes is the same thing as murdering Americans for saying nasty things on facebook!
They just say it. They don't actually believe it. Even Sean Hannity knows it, and he has gak for brains.
Frazzled wrote:
They are cheering. Its the left occupymykeister crowd that seems to be having a problem.
Ah.. well.. I dont like those stinky greebos either!
Easy E wrote:Wow, I see a lot of allegedly and according to U.S. Officials in there.
Of course it is allegedly, he never had a civil trial in the US. Damnedest thing, he never would show up for court even with all the invitations that were sent. If he had shown up and demanded a trial we would have given him one.
Google says he was never even indicted.
That goes to what Jihadin pointed out above about being considered an enemy combatant and not a criminal. I have no doubt though that if we could have taken him alive, which I don't think we could, we would have given him a trial, either military, criminal, or both, depending on the situation.
mattyrm wrote: The fact of the matter is, lets be honest, one minute they call him a socialist, next thing he's like Hitler cos he kills Americans, one minute he is too weak, next he is too headstrong. Its a crock of gak.
They would be cheering this gak if it was Bush doing the killing.
I hated Obama 4 years ago, he's getting voted for this time around.. the endless gak the Tea party and their idiotic chums throw out has been so laughable they have made me embrace the guy!
They are cheering. Its the left occupymykeister crowd that seems to be having a problem.
Well no it the far left plus the far right/libertarians that are having issues, which they should. I mean if Ron Paul was supporting this kind of thing that would be a bit strange.
Did Anwar deserve to be targeted and killed in that manner, probably. Was the assassination illegal, probably. Does that actually matter, probably not.
Ouze wrote:I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.
Sure, though I don't think it is quite that simple. There is a process in place and the President can't just throw the paperboy's name on a Kill or Capture list because he hasn't been delivering on time through Presidential fiat. It certainly could use more transparency, to be sure. I think we should have a better understanding of how the list is generated. I understand that they can't release all the evidence used to come to the decision, but they can at least talk about the committees and standards that the names pass through to determine if they make such a distinguished list.
Really, this is all I want. Some sort of transparency about how the Kill List is made, who makes the decisions, and what checks are on this power. That's all I want to know. I want to know that their are some provisions and protections in place, but especially related to American Citizens; since they have different legal rights than non-citizens.
Since I wouldn't trust myself with the power to make "Kill Lists" that would actually happen with little or no consequence, there is no way I'm trusting the President (Any President) with that power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
Did Anwar deserve to be targeted and killed in that manner, probably. Was the assassination illegal, probably. Does that actually matter, probably not.
Ouze wrote:I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.
Sure, though I don't think it is quite that simple. There is a process in place and the President can't just throw the paperboy's name on a Kill or Capture list because he hasn't been delivering on time through Presidential fiat. It certainly could use more transparency, to be sure. I think we should have a better understanding of how the list is generated. I understand that they can't release all the evidence used to come to the decision, but they can at least talk about the committees and standards that the names pass through to determine if they make such a distinguished list.
Really, this is all I want. Some sort of transparency about how the Kill List is made, who makes the decisions, and what checks are on this power. That's all I want to know. I want to know that their are some provisions and protections in place, but especially related to American Citizens; since they have different legal rights than non-citizens.
I think you'll find that killing people is illegal in most countries in the world.
Really, I don't see what the fuss is about. The US (and pretty much every other superpower ever) have always assassinated enemies, it's just that now it's done with missiles rather than by an American Mr. Bond.
Well, now it's my turn to get to the root of this issue
The reason why the USA is firing missles from drones, why the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 and why Britain grabbed a 1/4 of the world is because they can. It's a clear case of might is right, sadly.
If you think about this logically, more damage has been done to the USA by Mexican Cartels smuggling drugs and Chinese agents engaging in spying and sabotage. And yet, are there drones over Beijing? To hell there is!!! Far easier to blast a few malcontents in Afghanistan than pick on somebody that can fight back.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, now it's my turn to get to the root of this issue
The reason why the USA is firing missles from drones, why the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 and why Britain grabbed a 1/4 of the world is because they can. It's a clear case of might is right, sadly.
If you think about this logically, more damage has been done to the USA by Mexican Cartels smuggling drugs and Chinese agents engaging in spying and sabotage. And yet, are there drones over Beijing? To hell there is!!! Far easier to blast a few malcontents in Afghanistan than pick on somebody that can fight back.
Those "malcontents" are part of the organization that killed more US civilians than anyone else in history. Did you just forget that?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, now it's my turn to get to the root of this issue
The reason why the USA is firing missles from drones, why the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 and why Britain grabbed a 1/4 of the world is because they can. It's a clear case of might is right, sadly.
If you think about this logically, more damage has been done to the USA by Mexican Cartels smuggling drugs and Chinese agents engaging in spying and sabotage. And yet, are there drones over Beijing? To hell there is!!! Far easier to blast a few malcontents in Afghanistan than pick on somebody that can fight back.
Those "malcontents" are part of the organization that killed more US civilians than anyone else in history. Did you just forget that?
You could argue that the British Empire probably killed more US civilians than the Taliban/Al Qaeda combined.
And what about drugs cartels? How many American civilians have died from drugs overdoses? Or from gang violence due to the drugs trade? Mexican or other South American drugs cartels have contributed to the high number of fatalities. Frazz, you live in a state that has major issues with its neighbour, and I'm not talking about Oklahoma!!!
Americans are pretty good at killing each in the cities if crime stats are anything to go by.
I wasn't trying to slur the memory of people killed in terrorist attacks, just offering evidence that puts in perspective.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:You could argue that the British Empire probably killed more US civilians than the Taliban/Al Qaeda combined.
And what about drugs cartels? How many American civilians have died from drugs overdoses? Or from gang violence due to the drugs trade? Mexican or other South American drugs cartels have contributed to the high number of fatalities. Frazz, you live in a state that has major issues with its neighbour, and I'm not talking about Oklahoma!!!
Americans are pretty good at killing each in the cities if crime stats are anything to go by.
I wasn't trying to slur the memory of people killed in terrorist attacks, just offering evidence that puts in perspective.
It is in perspective.
UK - well, I've proffered we should take it over before. Others disagree from some reason or another, mainly due to the cuisine not being up to snuff. if you're going to take over a country, they need to have equal or better cuisine than you to make it worthwhile. Besides, unlike Frazzled, the rest of the US doesn't keep agrudge for that long (and we won so its all good).
Drugs are a crime. I'f you'll note I have been, however, advocating closing the border properly to shut down intrusion, and legalization to lessen its impact.
d-usa wrote:I will admit that he didn't need a trial the moment he formally renounced his citizenship, which he never did. If the constitution doesn't apply just tear the thing up and quit pretending we care about our own laws. We can't have it both ways, if we don't play by our rules then why should anybody else.
If we can only bring up a proof that he swore allegiance to ''another countries political subdivision'' (which is incredibly large, at least semantically), he can lose his citizenship. Something like this shouldn't be that hard to find, I'd assume oath taking is just as common for terrorrist about to blow themselves then for lawful soldiers.
Gotta say it's weird that the morality of the thing revolves around said person's allegiance to an organisation, instead of a flag, and that sole fact should be sufficient to spare him from being targetted in assassination. Especially now that organisations such as corporations and criminal cartels will more and more be in position to rival the powers of States. Allegiance to a country really doesn't mean as much today as it did after Westphalia...
d-usa wrote:And Anwar was still a citizen who has never faced trial.
He was a terrorist in the field, you don't put them on trial, you erase them.
He had lived out of the United States since 2002 and in the Yemen from 2004, he facilitated Al-Qaeda's movements and growing influence there. He agitated and preached violence against the United States across the world, securing finances and support for the people killing Americans and Britons.
He gave up his rights to the protections afforded by the constitution a long time ago. He was an enemy of the state and nation, he was an enemy of the West and of democracy and of peace. He actively recruited and inspired people to go and kill non-muslims.
"To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim." - Anwar al-Awlaki
I praise the administration that buried his murderous arse under the sand and the use of a minimum impact, minimum risk to our soldiers was a good decision. I have heard this criticism leveled at Obama, originating from some elements on the right, it frankly sickens me and reeks of hypocrisy. Why is there any complaint when this malignant influence was efficiently wiped off the earth yet many of those same critics can praise the massively costly and devastating invasion of Iraq?
Because they didn't vote for this president, but they did vote for the last one.
I lost family in Afghanistan, my family lost a friend in 9/11.
I fundamentally and wholeheartedly support the extinction of this terror-peddler with the minimum risk to service men and women of the US or UK.
I'd assume oath taking is just as common for terrorrist about to blow themselves then for lawful soldiers.
They don't swear an oath. They prepare themselves to meet God. They spend like seven days preparing themselves. Grooming, bathing, ointments, oils, fasting, and prayers. Then the individual will make the attempt to take out the target. If he/she/kid has second thoughts and not do it then its to late for them. Because the observer thats overwatching will remote detonate the vest.
d-usa wrote:And Anwar was still a citizen who has never faced trial.
Terrorists don't deserve constitutional protection even if they are US citizens (slightly shortened version)
All this does not change the fact that we have a constitution that needs to be followed. Nothing will ever change my mind on that. If we don't have to follow it anymore then the terrorists have won. Simple as that.
d-usa wrote:And Anwar was still a citizen who has never faced trial.
He was a terrorist in the field, you don't put them on trial, you erase them.
He had lived out of the United States since 2002 and in the Yemen from 2004, he facilitated Al-Qaeda's movements and growing influence there. He agitated and preached violence against the United States across the world, securing finances and support for the people killing Americans and Britons.
He gave up his rights to the protections afforded by the constitution a long time ago. He was an enemy of the state and nation, he was an enemy of the West and of democracy and of peace. He actively recruited and inspired people to go and kill non-muslims.
"To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim." - Anwar al-Awlaki
I praise the administration that buried his murderous arse under the sand and the use of a minimum impact, minimum risk to our soldiers was a good decision. I have heard this criticism leveled at Obama, originating from some elements on the right, it frankly sickens me and reeks of hypocrisy. Why is there any complaint when this malignant influence was efficiently wiped off the earth yet many of those same critics can praise the massively costly and devastating invasion of Iraq?
Because they didn't vote for this president, but they did vote for the last one.
I lost family in Afghanistan, my family lost a friend in 9/11.
I fundamentally and wholeheartedly support the extinction of this terror-peddler with the minimum risk to service men and women of the US or UK.
Very well done, Mr President.
Question: At what cost? Legal precedent and an incredibly ambiguous "kill list" determined by one branch of government. The military is trained and sworn to kill enemies of this nation all over the globe. That's their job. I like the outcome on Awlaki becoming hamburger, but to leave this kind of power in the hands of one man and his band is highly disturbing and is ripe for abuse. With a complicit media and courts laoded with people who do not value the Consitution, I cannot see this ending anywhere good.
I'm glad so many are ready to wear shackles for Dear Leader Obama.
d-usa wrote:All this does not change the fact that we have a constitution that needs to be followed. Nothing will ever change my mind on that. If we don't have to follow it anymore then the terrorists have won. Simple as that.
That's more or less sophistry. Terrorists have an objective which isn't 'to get the enemy off it's moral highground. The U.S. shirking around some of their constitutionnal responsabilities probably doesn't warm either the terrorist's or the taliban's heart. Al-Quaeda wants a new (Islamic) world order, from what I gather. If the U.S. takes steps to stop that, even if it's criminal steps, it's still a victory against terrorism.
@stormrider : Shackles? Dear Leader Obama? I think you've just insulted the memory of everyone who has lived and suffered under a fascist state...
A drone strike in another country needs permission to be executed by the POTUS. You all know the first kill list was a deck of cards for Iraq. Kill or Capture Sadam regime members. They got pretty much memorized...lots of Spades tournaments
Stormrider wrote:
Question: At what cost? Legal precedent and an incredibly ambiguous "kill list" determined by one branch of government. The military is trained and sworn to kill enemies of this nation all over the globe. That's their job. I like the outcome on Awlaki becoming hamburger, but to leave this kind of power in the hands of one man and his band is highly disturbing and is ripe for abuse. With a complicit media and courts laoded with people who do not value the Consitution, I cannot see this ending anywhere good.
I'm glad so many are ready to wear shackles for Dear Leader Obama.
Soooooo... Invading Iraq was who's decision again? Oh yeah, that guy and his band!
To what effect?
There were no weapons of mass destruction, there was little to no AlQ presence there before the invasion (they have been multiplying since we topped Saddam, who was diametrically opposed to AlQ), the invasion caused a massive lost of life in the civilian populace of the country, the invasion and subsequent occupation cost us many lives in our armed forces, the invasion and subsequent occupation cost billions and billions and helped push the economies of the West into the gak.
You approve of the guy getting greased and you are upset not at any notion of a wrong to the constitution, but because it's Obama and you hate Obama. Your last sentence makes clear your real gripe. If a republican president had sanctioned the operation, you'd be praising it and agreeing with me that the target forsook their rights on taking to a life of terrorist agitation.
The last guy launches wars on two fronts (historic suicide) costing trillions, facilitates the banks and money corps lending and mortgage fiasco that led to the near oblivion of Western economies and yet the guy that arrived in time to clean up after the party gets the blame for the mess. Drone kills anti-American terrorist, terrorist had American-passport, opponents of the current administration actually claim this is a threat to the constitutional rights of the people... perhaps, but only if the people intent to move to the arse end of the planet and start whipping people into going back to American and the West to blow other people into bits. Those people shouldn't get constitutional rights, those people are enemies of the state.
I'm still waiting to see what these 'shackles' are supposed to be or where they come from? Where is the great doom that Obama is bringing about? He's already been in office for 4 years and all I've seen of it was under his administration your economy has come back from the brink of a full depression and that jobs have been in growth for the last 2 years.
d-usa wrote:All this does not change the fact that we have a constitution that needs to be followed. Nothing will ever change my mind on that. If we don't have to follow it anymore then the terrorists have won. Simple as that.
That's more or less sophistry. Terrorists have an objective which isn't 'to get the enemy off it's moral highground. The U.S. shirking around some of their constitutionnal responsabilities probably doesn't warm either the terrorist's or the taliban's heart. Al-Quaeda wants a new (Islamic) world order, from what I gather. If the U.S. takes steps to stop that, even if it's criminal steps, it's still a victory against terrorism.
@stormrider : Shackles? Dear Leader Obama? I think you've just insulted the memory of everyone who has lived and suffered under a fascist state...
You don't think it could happen? I'm not insulting any Japanese that were rounded up under the order of Progressives in the 1940's am I? Or how about the Ethnic Germans in WWI under Wilson? Germans and Italians in WWII? How about Copperheads in the North during the Civil War?
I'm sure you're well versed in how fascistic societies operate.
d-usa wrote:All this does not change the fact that we have a constitution that needs to be followed. Nothing will ever change my mind on that. If we don't have to follow it anymore then the terrorists have won. Simple as that.
That's more or less sophistry. Terrorists have an objective which isn't 'to get the enemy off it's moral highground. The U.S. shirking around some of their constitutionnal responsabilities probably doesn't warm either the terrorist's or the taliban's heart. Al-Quaeda wants a new (Islamic) world order, from what I gather. If the U.S. takes steps to stop that, even if it's criminal steps, it's still a victory against terrorism.
@stormrider : Shackles? Dear Leader Obama? I think you've just insulted the memory of everyone who has lived and suffered under a fascist state...
You don't think it could happen? I'm not insulting any Japanese that were rounded up under the order of Progressives in the 1940's am I? Or how about the Ethnic Germans in WWI under Wilson? Germans and Italians in WWII? How about Copperheads in the North during the Civil War?
I'm sure you're well versed in how fascistic societies operate.
Rounding up people in camps, even if it's actually a really fethed up thing to do, isn't the hallmarks of fascists governments. Racial pogroms, exaltation of the leader, restructuration of the political system to insure that the leader retains power, takeover of the media, organization of society in military and paramilitary organisations, extension of the secret services to the surveillance of moral threats, these are the hallmarks of fascism. And note that these are pretty much all absents in the U.S.
Yes, I believe that, in the foreseable future, it is impossible for the U.S. to become a fascist state (which it has never been). Just like it's impossible for it to become a communist states. The tea party rethoric of calling Obama by fascist or communist sobriquets really just goes to show how uneducated it's members are.
Stormrider wrote:You don't think it could happen? I'm not insulting any Japanese that were rounded up under the order of Progressives in the 1940's am I? Or how about the Ethnic Germans in WWI under Wilson? Germans and Italians in WWII? How about Copperheads in the North during the Civil War?
I'm sure you're well versed in how fascistic societies operate.
You obviously aren't if you are actually suggesting that those actions equated to the United States being a fascist society at those times.
For that to happen the military has to be in play fo it. Blind obidience to orders is not an excuse. Unlawful orders will be recorded and pretty much ignored till more clarification is giving.
Jihadin wrote:For that to happen the military has to be in play fo it. Blind obidience to orders is not an excuse. Unlawful orders will be recorded and pretty much ignored till more clarification is giving.
There's that too. I might not like most of the jarhead types I've met up until now, but if there's one thing I respect in those I've met, it's the proper bloodlust for fascist scumbags inherited from the Greatest Generation war stories. Coupled with the fact that North American soil is pretty much sacred to Staters, I'm fairly confident that your armies wouldn't, at all, resort to concentration camps. Imagine how much of a field day the left media would have on a conservative who suggested that as a solution for the Mexican immigration 'crisis'?
In today's culture, it's impossible. Of course, tomorrow, a cartel might snuck a nuke and detonate it in Washington, and then all bets are off. But then again, tomorrow might as well be the Rapture, if we start enumerating all different possible scenarios...
Oh and thanks for the info on the suicide bombers. So there's no Al-Qaeda flag or oath?
Jihadin wrote:No there's no oath...just about 10K exchange to the family of the bomber.
Oh so they do the palestinian thing to? Huh... I imagine 10K might go further in some parts of the world, but that's still a pretty weak compensation package for strapping bombs in your underwear, if you ask me...
Gotta wonder, if they have a large founding, how long before they get a hold of their own drones (albeit they could probably do a lot of damage too with just a large model airplane and some C4).
d-usa wrote:I will admit that he didn't need a trial the moment he formally renounced his citizenship, which he never did. If the constitution doesn't apply just tear the thing up and quit pretending we care about our own laws. We can't have it both ways, if we don't play by our rules then why should anybody else.
If we can only bring up a proof that he swore allegiance to ''another countries political subdivision'' (which is incredibly large, at least semantically), he can lose his citizenship. Something like this shouldn't be that hard to find, I'd assume oath taking is just as common for terrorrist about to blow themselves then for lawful soldiers.
Gotta say it's weird that the morality of the thing revolves around said person's allegiance to an organisation, instead of a flag, and that sole fact should be sufficient to spare him from being targetted in assassination. Especially now that organisations such as corporations and criminal cartels will more and more be in position to rival the powers of States. Allegiance to a country really doesn't mean as much today as it did after Westphalia...
The reason is that the issue is being used as a political beatstick against the incumbent president.
Clearly it is a serious issue that someone was topped without trial, whether a citizen or not. If you believe in the slippery slope argument, perhaps Mitt Romney ought to get a well armoured bus for his campaign tour.
Realistically, though, does the US want people to join militant foreign organisations to plot violent attacks on their people, and then no recourse because you can't arraign him for trial in absentia, even though he is a self-confessed traitor?
Those kind of situations are part of why you have a President. To make the very difficult decisions and be called to account.
d-usa wrote:Which is actually an argument that was made by a few founding fathers who didn't like the idea of the Bill of Rights.
Ah yes, I had heard that before. Good point.
Not it is "it only applies if you behave yourself". We don't suspend the constitution for people that assasinate presidents. We didn't suspend the constitutional rights for McVeigh after he blew up the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. Your constitutional rights are your constitutional rights, even if you hate the USA.
The problem with dismissing slippery slope arguments is that some of them really do happen. This looks like one of those times where a slippery slope really has started.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...
Except, of course, that a person can't be at war with a country. Countries can be at war with countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:I think Israeli's killing US citizens might be the thing that finally pushes them over the "Israel cannot do anything wrong" cliff.
Pacific wrote:A couple of interesting conclusions that can be determined from the increase of Drone attacks, and the more visible nature of these assassination missions 1) The change in the nature of world power, and the focus of that power. Now more than ever it is in the middle east. The previous 'counter-weight', that created the bi-lateral balance between the US and USSR has gone, and while Russia and to an extent China are major players, in terms of reach of power, no one even comes close to the US. 2) American doesn't give a feth about what anyone else thinks, they are absolutely brazen about it - and why should they be otherwise? Pakistan can complain all they want, but what are they going to do except throw their arms in the air and call the US nasty names? Since the fall of the USSR, as one political commentator put it, the US is the hammer and everyone else is a nail. Obama has been positively passive compared to his predecessor, with Bush managing two separate major military operations and invasions of foreign soil within his tenure, I believe a first for any US president.
Excellent point, I think the disappearance of the counter-weight is a big issue. Back then, while it was a violent game there were some basic rules, because acting in an overt way ran a risk of a situation spiralling out of control between two nuclear armed states. Nowadays, what happens when a drone strike pisses off Yemen? The US bribes them with some guns and the Yemeni government claims they were actually the ones who killed a bunch of their own civilians. Or a strike pisses off Pakistan? The US stuffs about for a few months until the threat of losing their supply route to Afghanistan in the long term becomes real enough that they offer an apology.
But throughout all that no other government has the power to meaningfully respond to the US in kind, in a you kill our agents and we'll kill yours kind of way. And that means the US gets to do what it wants.
That said, I still think the biggest factor is that missiles launched predator drones are cheaper and safer than previously having to put boots on the ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:If a US citizen takes up arms against the government by allying himself with another government,I believe they are to be considered as renoucing their citizenship.
You can believe this all you want, but it isn't how the law works. If you want that changed, lobby your local congressman, get him to propose a change to the constitution. But you don't just get to pretend the law works how you want it to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Wouldn't that be the Japanese during WWII?
There were 50,000 civilian deaths during the Civil War, so I reckon that'd be it.
Have to remember the reasons why they (Japanese) were interned. The suprise attack on Pearl Harbor being a major one. Mentality of the japanese towards the Emperuh played into it. The condition of the US Navy in the pacific after the attack. The naval strength of the Imperial Navy helped the fear of invasion by the Imperial Army.
To add a bit more into the american thought process at that time. The 442nd was deployed to Europe instead of the Pacific to avoid japanese american having a conflict of loyalty
Kovnik Obama wrote:It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...
Except, of course, that a person can't be at war with a country. Countries can be at war with countries.
I get that, although I think that will likely change with time. States being the only one capable of declaring wars is probably a leftover from Westphalia. Since it's becoming more and more possible for organisation to gather the same allegiance as countries (lot's of people today are more devoted to their employers then their countries, really), and the means to wage 'war', and have the same effect (the pursuit of political objectives by the use of direct force), I'm sure it'll soon be appropriate to extend some of the legal semantics of war to define 'illegal combatants' as such before their capture.
Anyhow, I've already shown that it'd be possible to revoke his citizenship status if Al-Quaeda can be defined as a 'political subcategory' of a country, and if proof of his allegiance can be presented.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Have to remember the reasons why they (Japanese) were interned. The suprise attack on Pearl Harbor being a major one. Mentality of the japanese towards the Emperuh played into it. The condition of the US Navy in the pacific after the attack. The naval strength of the Imperial Navy helped the fear of invasion by the Imperial Army.
To add a bit more into the american thought process at that time. The 442nd was deployed to Europe instead of the Pacific to avoid japanese american having a conflict of loyalty
God I still shudder when thinking about those civilians jumping off cliffs because the Japs had told them Americans would torture them...
It seems to me that the problem is actually that trial in absentia is not allowed.
If that restriction were lifted, it should be possible to summon a suspected traitor/terrorist a trial, and if they refused to present, and could not be extradited, then they could be tried in absentia.
Of course I am assuming that the court would follow proper legal procedures and come to a fair verdict, otherwise this sort of trial could be an excuse for judicial murder.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Anyhow, I've already shown that it'd be possible to revoke his citizenship status if Al-Quaeda can be defined as a 'political subcategory' of a country, and if proof of his allegiance can be presented.
So what country is AQ a political sub-category of?
Not Afghanistan, not Iraq, not Iran, not Pakistan, not Yemen? None!
I guess that means he would still have been a citizen, even though he did things many of us would strongly/lethally object too.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:If a US citizen takes up arms against the government by allying himself with another government,I believe they are to be considered as renoucing their citizenship.
You can believe this all you want, but it isn't how the law works. If you want that changed, lobby your local congressman, get him to propose a change to the constitution. But you don't just get to pretend the law works how you want it to.
8 USC § 1481: "(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States"
Yes, joining a foreign military that is engaged in hostilities with the US makes you lose your US Citizenship.
No, it is an international terrorist organisation as recognised by the United Nations, Nato and the European Union.
It can clearly be identified as an organised body openly dedicated to engaging and combating the nation of the United States. It, as an international militia, has openly stated this intention.
All of which doesn't make it a state, so you don't loose citizenship.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Make laws, make ammendments to the constitution, do the right thing and do it the legal way. But of our executive branch can decide "these rules are too hard and shouldn't apply" and order the killing of US citizens who never faced a trial I am very disturbed.
Nothing will change that for me, so it is just something we shall disagree on.
d-usa wrote:All of which doesn't make it a state, so you don't loose citizenship.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Make laws, make ammendments to the constitution, do the right thing and do it the legal way. But of our executive branch can decide "these rules are too hard and shouldn't apply" and order the killing of US citizens who never faced a trial I am very disturbed.
Nothing will change that for me, so it is just something we shall disagree on.
d-usa wrote:All of which doesn't make it a state, so you don't loose citizenship.
You are using the letter of the law to slant the spirit of the law, the man had sided with a foreign organisation which is in a state of war with his parent nation. He was an enemy of the state and an acceptable target. He was actively recruiting for and empowering a terrorist organisation that is killing US soldiers and citizens.
If you can be in a state of war against Al Qaeda, and according to the previous administration, it is acceptable to be at war with such, then international organisations can be equated to enemy states in this instance.
d-usa wrote:All of which doesn't make it a state, so you don't loose citizenship.
And as I've already pointed out, those rules were written in the age of the nation state, which is long over. For all practical purposes, Al-Qaeda is a foreign armed force, the only difference is that they are not associated with a specific state entity. Continuing to operate as if states will be our only enemies in the future is near sighted and foolish. The spirit of the law is just as important as the letter, and we unfortunately have reached a stage where the letter is starting to be inadequate to meet the spirit.
An argument based on silly and pointless word games isn't much of an argument. The intention of the law is to revoke the citizenship of any citizen engaged in organized hostilities against the United States and its people. Al-Awlaki was clearly doing so. Any fear that the US will then start assassinating average Joe who doesn't like the US stance on organized volleyball is ludicrous.
Make laws, make ammendments to the constitution, do the right thing and do it the legal way.
Again, the Constitution doesn't lay out ground rules for dealing with this situation. The Founding Fathers never even conceived that a state would want to succeed, let alone that citizens would take up arms against the state at the behest of a foreign power.
So why not renounce people's citizenship before assasinating them? Would make this whole mess a lot cleaner wouldn't it?
Maybe the reason that has not happened is because they have done nothing to loose their citizenship. AQ is not a state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
d-usa wrote:All of which doesn't make it a state, so you don't loose citizenship.
You are using the letter of the law to slant the spirit of the law, the man had sided with a foreign organisation which is in a state of war with his parent nation. He was an enemy of the state and an acceptable target. He was actively recruiting for and empowering a terrorist organisation that is killing US soldiers and citizens.
If you can be in a state of war against Al Qaeda, and according to the previous administration, it is acceptable to be at war with such, then international organisations can be equated to enemy states in this instance.
Yet foreign national that physically tried to blow up an airplane get more rights than the citizen that told them to do it.
There is no "spirit of the law", this is not a GW rulebook. The law makes it very clear what you have to do in order to loose your citizenship. And none of these citizens had their citizenship revoked by a court.
It seems the only thing that matters is your motivation then. A mass murderer that kills for decades gets a trial because he is a citizen.
But if you say "death to America" while doing your killing you loose your citizenship and no trial required.
d-usa wrote:So why not renounce people's citizenship before assasinating them? Would make this whole mess a lot cleaner wouldn't it?
An active terrorist was eliminated. There is no mess, there is only mess for those making this a partisan and political issue, using it to snipe at the current administration instead of recognizing that a hostile who enabled the deaths of Americans was terminated.
d-usa wrote:
Maybe the reason that has not happened is because they have done nothing to loose their citizenship. AQ is not a state.
Do you think that self exile in order to fund, support, enable, promote, recruit and empower an international terrorist organisation is not cause for termination?
Would you like to stand up and honestly tell me that this man, who has called for the open murder of Americans, enabled Al Qaeda's foothold in the Yemen, enlisted new terrorist foot soldiers and human bombs and generated funding for the organisation, should have been brought back, at lethal risk to the servicemen and women who would be attempting the operation, in order to undergo a massively expensive court case?
A bad guy got greased. Using it to snipe at the administration in political point-scoring is to trivialize the ongoing loss of life in this war.
d-usa wrote:So why not renounce people's citizenship before assasinating them? Would make this whole mess a lot cleaner wouldn't it?
An active terrorist was eliminated. There is no mess, there is only mess for those making this a partisan and political issue, using it to snipe at the current administration instead of recognizing that a hostile who enabled the deaths of Americans was terminated.
d-usa wrote:
Maybe the reason that has not happened is because they have done nothing to loose their citizenship. AQ is not a state.
Do you think that self exile in order to fund, support, enable, promote, recruit and empower an international terrorist organisation is not cause for termination?
Would you like to stand up and honestly tell me that this man, who has called for the open murder of Americans, enabled Al Qaeda's foothold in the Yemen, enlisted new terrorist foot soldiers and human bombs and generated funding for the organisation, should have been brought back, at lethal risk to the servicemen and women who would be attempting the operation, in order to undergo a massively expensive court case?
A bad guy got greased. Using it to snipe at the administration in political point-scoring is to trivialize the ongoing loss of life in this war.
And I really don't mean to come across as saying that I don't think guys like him should not be punished. I am just very worries that a slippery slope factor can result from this and that there are judicial and legislativd solutions that should be considered instead of having one branch of the government make the call to kill of citizens no matter what the circumstance. I know it is a difficult and passionate topic and we all feel strongly about it and I like that despise our strong disagreement on this topic the conversation has stayed civil.
I am not trying to shake everybody here while screamin "wake up sheeple", just laying out why I am strongly bothered by it. We have probably reached a point in the thread where the same argument is going to get repeated again and again, so there is likely no point in keeping that debate going. I truly see what you guys are saying, I just don't think this is the right solution.
I was typing the last post as your response was posted, so I will just reply to that.
It is not a partisan issue for me there. I think this is a continuation of stuff that started with Bush and is likely to be continued by Romney if he wins.
And yes, I have stood up and publicly stated that there should have been a judicial process before he was assassinated. Irregardless of cost or danger, because I feel that the Constitution doesn't stop when applying it becomes a hardship.
I know it is not a popular opinion, but I will always openly state that I think assasinating him was very wrong.
Jihadin wrote:You all combining a criminal with a illegal combatant.
I'm not. He was serving in the forces of a declared enemy. That makes him, at best an enemy soldier, but more accurately an enemy agent, on the order of a guerrilla or spy.
"You know what we do with spies, don't you Mr. Bond."
"Cackle maniacly and tell me your entire plan?"
"Why ye...NO! Wait. what?"
LordofHats wrote:
And as I've already pointed out, those rules were written in the age of the nation state, which is long over.
Well, not over, just different. The nation-state still dominates international politics, but its grip isn't quite so strong as it once was.
To Clausewitz this bad boy, without a new heavy cannon the world is going to be very messy.
LordofHats wrote:
The spirit of the law is just as important as the letter, and we unfortunately have reached a stage where the letter is starting to be inadequate to meet the spirit.
And, more importantly, where writing new letters is viewed by many people in the most important nation to writing those letters as a sign that the UN/WTO/whatever is taking their "freedom".
Yet foreign national that physically tried to blow up an airplane get more rights than the citizen that told them to do it.
Some people would say that's a problem with how we treat people who fly planes into buildings, not a problem with how we shoot missiles at people who plot with them to do it.
And yes, I have stood up and publicly stated that there should have been a judicial process before he was assassinated.
There very well may be. The problem with secret procedures is that they're secret.
Irregardless of cost or danger, sometimes the Constitution doesn't provide requisite means to achieve justice or security or freedom forcing us to accept that it isn't the end of the law, just the basis.
Fixed. The damn thing is 200 years old. The Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned the United States of 1860, let alone the US of 1941, or the US of 1965, or the US of 2001.
d-usa wrote:
Yet foreign national that physically tried to blow up an airplane get more rights than the citizen that told them to do it.
There is no "spirit of the law", this is not a GW rulebook. The law makes it very clear what you have to do in order to loose your citizenship. And none of these citizens had their citizenship revoked by a court.
It seems the only thing that matters is your motivation then. A mass murderer that kills for decades gets a trial because he is a citizen.
But if you say "death to America" while doing your killing you loose your citizenship and no trial required.
Of course there is a spirit of the law, it is the intended outcome of the processing and implementation of the law upon the nation and society by it's creators. All laws are generated with an intended outcome. The spirit of the wording of '8 USC § 1481: "(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States" was that if you are actively engaged in the persuit of the destruction of the US and supporting an external force, you are using the exact term 'foreign state' to claim that this man deserves to retain his citizenship more than someone who directly worked to serve, say, North Korea, because Al Qaeda is an international body and NKorea is a country, however the outcome of both hypothetical individuals is the same, they are both 'engaged in hostilities against the United States'.
Those foreign nationals serving as agents of terror, captured by circumstance have enjoyed trial, those that were turned to their component atoms by airstrike were terminated, those charging towards troops were shot.
A terrorist demagogue, in hostile territory, surrounded by armed supporters and in a highly violent and unstable country, is eliminated with the resources available using the minimum risk to your own soldiers lives. If he was taking a stroll through an Irish field, unarmed and by himself, and they could snatch him up in a helicopter and take him off to glean information from him, I think they would have done it.
Regardless of cost or danger, sometimes the Constitution doesn't provide requisite means to achieve justice or security or freedom forcing us to accept that it isn't the end of the law, just the basis.
Fixed. The damn thing is 200 years old. The Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned the United States of 1860, let alone the US of 1941, or the US of 1965, or the US of 2001.
d-usa wrote:It is not a partisan issue for me there. I think this is a continuation of stuff that started with Bush and is likely to be continued by Romney if he wins.
Does not equate to your thread title. That reads as highly partisan.
d-usa wrote:So why not renounce people's citizenship before assasinating them? Would make this whole mess a lot cleaner wouldn't it?
An active terrorist was eliminated. There is no mess, there is only mess for those making this a partisan and political issue, using it to snipe at the current administration instead of recognizing that a hostile who enabled the deaths of Americans was terminated.
This isn't strictly true, the middle part there. I voted for Obama and am likely to vote for him again, assuming he doesn't do some wacky thing in the next few months. And yet I didn't think that being able to declare a citizen an "enemy combatant" with no oversight was OK when Bush did it, and it's not OK with Obama does it. As a matter of fact, Obama dropped the "enemy combatant" term so he's on even shakier legal ground in my opinion. The point is that I don't think any president of any party should be able to build a kill list that involves American citizens with little to no oversight from the other branches. Several of the people that have posted similar sentiments in this thread would be considered liberal or left leaning so it's not just a right-wing attack on Obama. I'm sure there are truly right-wing partisans who are are using it, as someone said, as a political beatstick, but it's not everyone.
No president does wholly good things or wholly bad things. I generally think Bush did bad things, so far as over-strengthening the Executive via signing statements (and so on) but he also did some really good things, like his increased funding into AIDS research. I think Obama does some good things but he also does some crappy things, and I count continuing some of his predecessor's claims of nigh-uncheckable war powers among them.
So far as it being a "political issue", I'm not sure what it means. Of course it's a political issue, every discussion of the president is, right?
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Those are some damn fine suits. Damn fine.
Pinstripes are always in style, man. Well done, Rummy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:A terrorist demagogue, in hostile territory, surrounded by armed supporters and in a highly violent and unstable country, is eliminated with the resources available using the minimum risk to your own soldiers lives. If he was taking a stroll through an Irish field, unarmed and by himself, and they could snatch him up in a helicopter and take him off to glean information from him, I think they would have done it.
As it was, they wiped out a threat.
Yeah, I'm happy with the destination, just not too pleased with the road we followed to get there. I'd really prefer our leadership use RAW instead of RAI, and if RAW are causing a problem they should issue a FAQ to fix it.
Of course there is a spirit of the law, it is the intended outcome of the processing and implementation of the law upon the nation and society by it's creators. All laws are generated with an intended outcome. The spirit of the wording of '8 USC § 1481: "(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States" was that if you are actively engaged in the persuit of the destruction of the US and supporting an external force, you are using the exact term 'foreign state' to claim that this man deserves to retain his citizenship more than someone who directly worked to serve, say, North Korea, because Al Qaeda is an international body and NKorea is a country, however the outcome of both hypothetical individuals is the same, they are both 'engaged in hostilities against the United States'.
I think part of the discussion that needs to happen is, who decides which non-state actors are "engaged in hostilities agains the United States" as opposed to criminal acts. Then, what is the appropriate response by a the Country to such people. This isn't Jack Ryan in "Clear and Present Danger" here, where the President decides to go after drug cartels with spec ops, bombs, and other milspec gear. This is real life, and that discussion is important for the citizenry to understand and be a part of.
Also, I don't see this as a partisan issue, but by its nature it is a political issue. It is a discussion about who has the power to kill in the name of the state and where the line is drawn on where these powers begin and end.
So a terrorist supporter is killed. Great. So, who is the next terrorist support? What is the next Terrorist organization? What criteria do we use to decide they need to be hit with a drone? Wobblies, Michigan Militia, Westboro Baptist Church Members, Abortion Doctors, the MEK of Iran, Canadian dual-citizens, AQ in Europe, Communists Party members in the US? Perhaps it is crazy small d- democratic of me, but I want a public discussion on the broad methods and concepts involved here; but not the specific targets.
Well if the POTUS says the NRA is a terrorist grp then its a local matter with law enforcement. Now if you lead a armed insurrection against the US gov't then you become a combatant against the duly elected gov't of the USA. You are now consider a target. If the US military don't kill you but capture you you will be afforded a civic court trail as stated in the Geneva Convention for PoWs. It is not 3 hots and a cot. Its one hot, a cot and two cold meals....actually we would remove the heater from the MRE so no hots for you.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Anyhow, I've already shown that it'd be possible to revoke his citizenship status if Al-Quaeda can be defined as a 'political subcategory' of a country, and if proof of his allegiance can be presented.
So what country is AQ a political sub-category of?
Not Afghanistan, not Iraq, not Iran, not Pakistan, not Yemen? None!
I guess that means he would still have been a citizen, even though he did things many of us would strongly/lethally object too.
A 'political sub-category' is, like I pointed out, a semantically large syntagm. If it had been 'a political party', it's meaning would've been restricted to what you suggest. Otherwise, without a legal definition in the opening glossary of the law, it's left to it's mundane meaning. It doesn't imply that the said political sub-category is limited alone to influencing one country, AND it doesn't imply any other restriction than 'being political'. As Aristotle told us, everything is political. But even without refering to age old philosophy, it's easy to understand that an entity having influence over a society is a political entity. Al-Qaeda had (and probably still has) influence over a large amount of countries in the middle east ; thus, it can be defined as a political sub-category of a large number of countries.
I find it most interesting that with all the legal what-nots being discussed, what the international precedent that these strikes represent.
Yes, assassinations have happened regardless of the country in charge, but not quite as obvious as in this case.
What if Germany were to use drones to destroy military barracks in Austria/France/Etc. citing that there was a terrorist representing grave threat to their nation??
While I like that these terrorists are being eliminated, it sets a very nasty international precedent that could easily spark a regional war
Also will the folks throwing the world Fascist around please stop and actually learn what it means
Huffy wrote: I find it most interesting that with all the legal what-nots being discussed, what the international precedent that these strikes represent. Yes, assassinations have happened regardless of the country in charge, but not quite as obvious as in this case. What if Germany were to use drones to destroy military barracks in Austria/France/Etc. citing that there was a terrorist representing grave threat to their nation?? While I like that these terrorists are being eliminated, it sets a very nasty international precedent that could easily spark a regional war
Except it doesn't really set a precedent. As far as international law is concerned, a large part of the CIA is a criminal organisation. No one complains tho, because what matters on the international level is the might to do something about anything. I agree that if Germany were to target France through Drones, that would set a precedent, because that would be using drones against something else than a failed State, or an organisation. It might come up some day, but this isn't it.
More than likely, drones sophistication will have, between modern countries, no incidence, because we still have the ultimate threat to keep us all chill and cool : nukes.
What might really REALLY change the game is when drones will start being available to criminal and terrorist organisations.
I disagree about nukes. What keeps the peace among the modern states of Europe and North America is the fact that if any one attacked another at this current moment, they would have to then face the threat of fighting all the rest. If Germany drone strikes France, France actually has the capability to not only strike back at Germany itself, but to call on the UK, the US, and anyone else to strike Germany as well.
Right now, the Western states do not need to fear war between themselves. They all have no interest in engaging in war with one another.
Pakistan on the other hand, has no ability to combat the United States, thus we pretty much look them in the eye and say "so do something about it" because we know they can't do anything. Pakistan wouldn't dare shoot nukes, even at India, because they know its suicide. Everyone does, and no one is quite that stupid.
Ahh, but we need to think further along than just this moment, 50 or 60 years down the line Western European countries could very well have differing interests.
And drones are fairly cheap to obtain and operate, Iran has a domestic military drone industry
If we want to look at a more unstable area such as the middle east, you might see drones popping up all over in the near future
LordofHats wrote:I disagree about nukes. What keeps the peace among the modern states of Europe and North America is the fact that if any one attacked another at this current moment, they would have to then face the threat of fighting all the rest. If Germany drone strikes France, France actually has the capability to not only strike back at Germany itself, but to call on the UK, the US, and anyone else to strike Germany as well.
Right now, the Western states do not need to fear war between themselves. They all have no interest in engaging in war with one another.
Pakistan on the other hand, has no ability to combat the United States, thus we pretty much look them in the eye and say "so do something about it" because we know they can't do anything. Pakistan wouldn't dare shoot nukes, even at India, because they know its suicide. Everyone does, and no one is quite that stupid.
Humm. I wonder if there's still a balance of power check in the lines of what was supposed to balance the Westphalian States. Probably. Most western wars in the latest years haven't been unilateral engagements. I guess it must depend on the perception of a possibility of 'spilling'. A conflict which seems regional probably won't attract outisde attention.
In fact, I think there's not a single reason why western, modern countries don't jump at each other, but a whole sleugh of reason. Nukes are just the big daddy of such reasons... Never before the entire annihilation of a country as been so possible. Basically, my political science course went along the line ; ''Clausewitz didn't define correctly the wars that he was seeing, but he predicted the state of wars once we came unto the nuclear age''. Up until very recently, you could repeatedly engage in wars that would completly exhaust a country, yet almost never fear to lose its governance, or even the future capacity to wage war... Nukes makes ''the duel to the death of Nations'' possible...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Huffy wrote:Ahh, but we need to think further along than just this moment, 50 or 60 years down the line Western European countries could very well have differing interests.
True. Or it might be one big frakking State.
And drones are fairly cheap to obtain and operate, Iran has a domestic military drone industry
I would assume that's about to get blown up.
If we want to look at a more unstable area such as the middle east, you might see drones popping up all over in the near future
Yeah, that's not going to be cool when it falls in the hand of less scrupulous military leaders.
Am I the only one that thinks it's funny that Mitt Romney chooses to criticize Obama over the economy (despite the fact that republicans have agreed to obstruct any and all democratic agendas) and not over ordering an unconstitutional assassination?
LoneLictor wrote:Am I the only one that thinks it's funny that Mitt Romney chooses to criticize Obama over the economy (despite the fact that republicans have agreed to obstruct any and all democratic agendas) and not over ordering an unconstitutional assassination?
Politics is kraaaaaaazay.
Maybe he doesn't want to make an issue out of it in case he needs to do it himself if he's elected?
Oh but that would be assuming that politicians aren't able to say whatever the frak they want during elections, and then ''change their mind'' once elected...
LoneLictor wrote:Am I the only one that thinks it's funny that Mitt Romney chooses to criticize Obama over the economy (despite the fact that republicans have agreed to obstruct any and all democratic agendas) and not over ordering an unconstitutional assassination?
Politics is kraaaaaaazay.
Maybe he doesn't want to make an issue out of it in case he needs to do it himself if he's elected?
Oh but that would be assuming that politicians aren't able to say whatever the frak they want during elections, and then ''change their mind'' once elected...
Yeah. Obama said he would close Gitmo.
Guess what's still operating? GItmo.
Mitt Romney will 99% continue Obama's assassinations and gak, but that don't mean he can't call Obama out on it.
That's because if Romney runs on anything other than the economy, he will lose. He has to rely on ultraconservative positions which ultimately most Americans don't agree with, and so he prefers to run without making any positions at all.
LoneLictor wrote:Am I the only one that thinks it's funny that Mitt Romney chooses to criticize Obama over the economy (despite the fact that republicans have agreed to obstruct any and all democratic agendas) and not over ordering an unconstitutional assassination?
Politics is kraaaaaaazay.
[crazyconspiracytheorytalk] Between the Patriot Act and unconstitutional assassinations we have found some of the few truly bipartisan topics in DC [/crazyconspiracytheorytalk]
LoneLictor wrote:Am I the only one that thinks it's funny that Mitt Romney chooses to criticize Obama over the economy (despite the fact that republicans have agreed to obstruct any and all democratic agendas) and not over ordering an unconstitutional assassination?
Politics is kraaaaaaazay.
[crazyconspiracytheorytalk] Between the Patriot Act and unconstitutional assassinations we have found some of the few truly bipartisan topics in DC [/crazyconspiracytheorytalk]
Yep, removal of constitutional rights is unilaterally supported by both parties.
Well...I'm not worry about ME country or a terrorist organization using drones. That be a longway down the road. Iran I'm sure has already let Russia looked over the drone they captured. As I'm sure Kosovo let the russian looked over the stealth fighter they shot down. My next bet would be Russia using drones on Chechen rebels
LordofHats wrote:I disagree about nukes. What keeps the peace among the modern states of Europe and North America is the fact that if any one attacked another at this current moment, they would have to then face the threat of fighting all the rest. If Germany drone strikes France, France actually has the capability to not only strike back at Germany itself, but to call on the UK, the US, and anyone else to strike Germany as well.
There's also the fact that there isn't any real economic benefit to such a strike. Back in the day when Europe was always at war it was generally grounded in material reasons, or prevailing idea that periodic conflict was actually healthy.
LordofHats wrote:
Pakistan on the other hand, has no ability to combat the United States, thus we pretty much look them in the eye and say "so do something about it" because we know they can't do anything. Pakistan wouldn't dare shoot nukes, even at India, because they know its suicide. Everyone does, and no one is quite that stupid.
Or so we hope.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
What might really REALLY change the game is when drones will start being available to criminal and terrorist organisations.
I don't know if they've done it yet, but theoretically they have the technology to build rudimentary drones. The major limitation being signal range from the controller.
Iran got a lot of its nuclear technology by buying it from a rogue Pakistani engineer.
It wouldn't take much for a well funded terrorist group to get hold of plans for building drones, even if they couldn't work out the engineering themselves.
Jihadin wrote:Well...I'm not worry about ME country or a terrorist organization using drones. That be a longway down the road. Iran I'm sure has already let Russia looked over the drone they captured. As I'm sure Kosovo let the russian looked over the stealth fighter they shot down. My next bet would be Russia using drones on Chechen rebels
They were actually already using drones on the protest crowds following elections over there(only surveillance though)
Their military drones are radically different than ours....
Isreal hasn't made the news yet on it either. Nor is it consider a world player...region player yes...world player no. I say Russia first to use in taking out a Chechen leader. That'll make the news quick. China launching a drone missile at a rebel...wait...closest thing to rebels they have is Taiwan...which would be bad...since probaly the parts they use to build their drone was manufactured from Taiwan
Huffy wrote: I find it most interesting that with all the legal what-nots being discussed, what the international precedent that these strikes represent.
Yes, assassinations have happened regardless of the country in charge, but not quite as obvious as in this case.
What if Germany were to use drones to destroy military barracks in Austria/France/Etc. citing that there was a terrorist representing grave threat to their nation??
While I like that these terrorists are being eliminated, it sets a very nasty international precedent that could easily spark a regional war
Also will the folks throwing the world Fascist around please stop and actually learn what it means
Derp its an act of war.
Austria declares war, maybe. The only war they had with Germany (back when it was just Prussia) was a crushing loss. Does Austria even have a military?
France, surrenders, of course.
.
cares" 
