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.

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.

Where is this great doom?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

Stormrider wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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?

No there's no oath...just about 10K exchange to the family of the bomber.

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).

Sadam was funding that to against Isreal

As for the RC thing....we have ECM (Duke, Warlock devices mainly) that are ECM

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

You would think that, wouldn't you?

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

sebster wrote:

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

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.

And AQ is not a foreign state.

d-usa wrote:And AQ is not a foreign state.

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.

You would lose that argument in a courtroom.

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.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

Edit:

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.

You all combining a criminal with a illegal combatant.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Those are some damn fine suits. Damn fine.