Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

I wasn't actually referring to those in this thread, Fraz.

Melissia wrote:I wasn't actually referring to those in this thread, Fraz.

Well then why did you troll the thread with your post?

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.

Also makes them look like they're hyperactively overreacting.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

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!

Ouze wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

Should it matter? Yes.

Easy E wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

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?

We have Chuck Norris instead of Bond

Frazzled wrote:

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?

Wouldn't that be the Japanese during WWII?

Nope.

Chuck has been replaced by a Hellfire equipped Predator drone.

You know what's under a Predator Drones nose cone? Another Hellfire missile. <rimshot>

Frazzled wrote:Nope.

Derp, looked at the wrong column in my source.

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.

Matty...I didn't know you all sent in video tryouts for the remake of Footloose. So um....Thats not you at the 3:11 mark?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to bring the simmering anger building up somewhere on this thread to a low point.

Jihadin wrote:Matty...I didn't know you all sent in video tryouts for the remake of Footloose. So um....Thats not you at the 3:11 mark?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to bring the simmering anger building up somewhere on this thread to a low point.

He's just limbering before he single handedly invades Argentina, just because he's bored.

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.

Very well done, Mr President.

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.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.