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.

Ahtman wrote:Yes.

Except, of course, there isn't.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yes.

Except, of course, there isn't.

You're wrong on this point. There is actually quite and extensive process which ends with a Presidential Finding before missions can even be planned and resourced. But don't let your ignorance of the process keep you from denying it exists. JSOC forces and assets and CIA drones don't get launched and receive permission to conduct a mission like this without an awful lot of work and a very extensive approval process which includes several decision points along the way.

sebster wrote:Is there a formal process for the decision to execute a person in place anywhere?

Presumably declarations of war and capital punishment statutes would technically fit. But as I'm sure you'd point out, these both actually do require oversight (from Congress and/or the Judiciary).

I think the issue isn't what process there is for the decision, but rather what process is available to contest or otherwise avoid the use of lethal force. A prisoner on death row may appeal or seek a pardon, a soldier on the battlefield may lay down his weapons and surrender, even a criminal at gunpoint can surrender.

In case of a targetted killing, there's no way for the subject to realize his imminent demise and surrender into the hands of the authorities.

So do we actually know there was no oversight, that there was no procedures gone through, or are we just taking Ron Paul's politically biased opinion?

Melissia wrote:So do we actually know there was no oversight, that there was no procedures gone through, or are we just taking Ron Paul's politically biased opinion?

Yes, there is a process/there are procedures. As for oversight, there is some level of it, but probably not enough to make everyone happy. Members (or in some cases just chairpersons) of some congressional commitees are briefed on the targets, and have a chance to voice objections. The legal guys from several agencies take part in preparing and refuting justifications to ensure the advice given passess some legal sense. In the end, the President is the guy who decides though. I guess that Commander in Chief thing written into the Constitution comes into play.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Is there a formal process for the decision to execute a person in place anywhere?

Presumably declarations of war and capital punishment statutes would technically fit. But as I'm sure you'd point out, these both actually do require oversight (from Congress and/or the Judiciary).

I think the issue isn't what process there is for the decision, but rather what process is available to contest or otherwise avoid the use of lethal force. A prisoner on death row may appeal or seek a pardon, a soldier on the battlefield may lay down his weapons and surrender, even a criminal at gunpoint can surrender.

In case of a targetted killing, there's no way for the subject to realize his imminent demise and surrender into the hands of the authorities.

Since congress seems to have refused to declare war in decades, I think the authorization to use military force against AQ, and the funding of the JSOC and CIA drone programs to include specific airfields for use in Yemen and other countries in that region are gonna have to go towards showing Congress's intent here.

As for 'a soldier on the battlefield can surrender' that is a bad statement. If done right, an ambush does NOT give that opportunity. Neither does a sniper taking a shot from over 500 meters away. Or an Apache launching rockets several thousand meters, or the guy on the other side of a door being breached, or a 155mm Excaliber round homing in on a target some observer called in. I guess the soldier could always surrender as soon as they realized they were at war, but then again, once Awlaki knew he was on the target list he could have gone to an embassy or consulate or returned to the US to bring suit against the administration to fight his inclusion on that list. Instead he seems to have mad a conscious decision to continue his evil ways, knowing he was on that list.

CptJake wrote:once Awlaki knew he was on the target list he could have gone to an embassy or consulate or returned to the US to bring suit against the administration to fight his inclusion on that list.

His father tried to, the court decided that the decision to kill Al-Awlaki was a political question (one reserved to the political branches of Congress), and therefore not reviewable.

Also, there was an order to kill him, I'm pretty sure that if he walked up to an embassy, he bore a very real risk of being shot on sight.

CptJake wrote:Instead he seems to have mad a conscious decision to continue his evil ways, knowing he was on that list.

What evil ways? The only things we've been told about him are through the administration and media. Was he told that he could get off the list by stopping what he was doing?

Judicial review is an important element, and it shouldn't be simply dismissed because "he was a bad guy."

Congress authorized war against Al Qaeda. he was a member of Al Qaeda. A+B = C

If it was good enough to send P-38s to shoot Yamamoto out of the sky, its good enough to send a Hellfire to take out this piece of filth. Enemy commanders are a priority target.

It all boils down to this. There might have been oversight, and there might not have been oversight. Either way, there are still classifications that are in place that could prevent us from knowing. Until there's some sort of press conference/release about the issue, it's all just pissing in the wind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is, of course, if the argument is based wholly on the "he's a citizen, not a militant" issue, which it's not.

biccat wrote:

CptJake wrote:once Awlaki knew he was on the target list he could have gone to an embassy or consulate or returned to the US to bring suit against the administration to fight his inclusion on that list.

His father tried to, the court decided that the decision to kill Al-Awlaki was a political question (one reserved to the political branches of Congress), and therefore not reviewable.

Also, there was an order to kill him, I'm pretty sure that if he walked up to an embassy, he bore a very real risk of being shot on sight.

CptJake wrote:Instead he seems to have mad a conscious decision to continue his evil ways, knowing he was on that list.

What evil ways? The only things we've been told about him are through the administration and media. Was he told that he could get off the list by stopping what he was doing?

Judicial review is an important element, and it shouldn't be simply dismissed because "he was a bad guy."

Daddy didn't have standing, Sonny could have tried. And at least he could have tried to fight it and had his day in court. FYI, folks walking up to an embassy are not ever 'shot on sight' except in movies. It is actually very easy to arange to turn yourself in if you so desire.

What military operation has ever been open for judicial review? What section of the Constitution gives the courts the power of judicial review for stuff like that? Wanting it to be so does not make it so.

As for his evil ways, have you looked into HIS publications and words and the acts he takes credit for? Just because YOU only look at the administration and media it would be a bad assumption to assume that is all the info that is available.

CptJake wrote:Daddy didn't have standing, Sonny could have tried. And at least he could have tried to fight it and had his day in court. FYI, folks walking up to an embassy are not ever 'shot on sight' except in movies. It is actually very easy to arange to turn yourself in if you so desire.

1) The case was dismissed on both standing and political question doctrines. Courts often back up their standing decisions with other rationales because it's a fairly minor hurdle.
2) Practicalities aren't the issue here, we're discussing the legal options. You've already admitted that there's no judicial review and the man could be killed without any external oversight. What legal process then would have stopped him from being captured and summarily executed? Whether that occurs at the embassy or in an electric chair is irrelevant.

CptJake wrote:What military operation has ever been open for judicial review? What section of the Constitution gives the courts the power of judicial review for stuff like that? Wanting it to be so does not make it so.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. While I think the decision was wrong, it's still the law.

CptJake wrote:As for his evil ways, have you looked into HIS publications and words and the acts he takes credit for? Just because YOU only look at the administration and media it would be a bad assumption to assume that is all the info that is available.

This is irrelevant. I don't dispute that he was a bad guy and that he got what he deserved. What I do have a problem with is the unilateral action by the president to order the death of an American citizen. Not even Bush, for all of his supposed human rights abuses, ordered the killing of American citizens.

It's yet another example of left-wing hypocracy. Get upset when Bush imprisons enemy combatants, don't get upset when Obama kills them.

biccat wrote:
It's yet another example of left-wing hypocracy. Get upset when Bush imprisons enemy combatants, don't get upset when Obama kills them.

I'm not sure if you don't consider dailykos, Rachel Maddow, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Best sufficiently left-wing or if you just made a statement without bothering to look into it first, but there's been quite a bit of criticism from the left.

I mean, I guess you might just be making a point about how politicians will alternately praise and criticize certain actions based on the party in power, in which case I'll simply say "What a startling revelation, please tell me more!"

dogma wrote:I'm not sure if you don't consider dailykos, Rachel Maddow, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Best sufficiently left-wing or if you just made a statement without bothering to look into it first, but there's been quite a bit of criticism from the left.

You should correct that quote tag.

Are some left-wingers upset with the administration? Sure. Are they calling this action a war crime? Of course not. Were some right-wingers upset with the Bush administration? Yes. But have there been mass protests, allegations of war crimes, or litigation on behalf of the targets on the "kill list" from interested groups? No.

Thanks for supporting my point.

Frazzled wrote:Congress authorized war against Al Qaeda. he was a member of Al Qaeda. A+B = C

If it was good enough to send P-38s to shoot Yamamoto out of the sky, its good enough to send a Hellfire to take out this piece of filth. Enemy commanders are a priority target.

See, Frazz gets it. He leans heavily towards Republican (and even likes Perry!) but least Frazzled is big enough to get over his distaste for Obama/Dems and talk sense. Some of you guys are so sickeningly partisan its embarrassing!

I mean, most Republicans are like me, they like the military, they like guns, they think tanks and gunships are fething mint, and they like it when we bomb the gak out those (usually foreign) people that we deem deserve it!

Therefore, if this was Bush dropping a bomb on the scumbag, you would be defending his right to do so, you would be lining up to fight Dubyas corner against those NY times reading pinko's that "hate America"

As I said, its painfully obvious. If your one of the die hard Republicans on here and your still trying to argue the case for our recently deceased foul smelling "American" friend, then you really have no integrity at all, and rest assured I shall remember your name and quote you mercilessly the next time a Red President drops a 500lber on some fethers head that clearly deserves it.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Congress authorized war against Al Qaeda. he was a member of Al Qaeda. A+B = C

If it was good enough to send P-38s to shoot Yamamoto out of the sky, its good enough to send a Hellfire to take out this piece of filth. Enemy commanders are a priority target.

See, Frazz gets it. He leans heavily towards Republican (and even likes Perry!) but least Frazzled is big enough to get over his distaste for Obama/Dems and talk sense. Some of you guys are so sickeningly partisan its embarrassing!

I mean, most Republicans are like me, they like the military, they like guns, they think tanks and gunships are fething mint, and they like it when we bomb the gak out those (usually foreign) people that we deem deserve it!

Therefore, if this was Bush dropping a bomb on the scumbag, you would be defending his right to do so, you would be lining up to fight Dubyas corner against those NY times reading pinko's that "hate America"

As I said, its painfully obvious. If your one of the die hard Republicans on here and your still trying to argue the case for our recently deceased foul smelling "American" friend, then you really have no integrity at all, and rest assured I shall remember your name and quote you mercilessly the next time a Red President drops a 500lber on some fethers head that clearly deserves it.

You were right about everything except the Perry part. I'm a Cainanite.
This is not a party issue. Appropriate legislation was passed. That legislation was Constitutional. The action was taken under color of that legislation. End of issue.

biccat wrote:
You should correct that quote tag.

Done, must have pasted over it accidentally.

biccat wrote:
Are they calling this action a war crime? Of course not.

As I recall the charges of Bush being a war criminal were over, respectively, torture and an ostensibly illegal invasion, not assassination. Though maybe somewhere some liberal included assassination, maybe even a significant number did, in neither case would that render the collective left hypocritical.

biccat wrote:
But have there been mass protests, allegations of war crimes, or litigation on behalf of the targets on the "kill list" from interested groups? No.

The "war crimes" protests were all relatively small events, the really large ones were general Iraq War protests, which have continued under Obama, though they're not nearly so focused as the old Iraq protests tended to overlap with general Bush era policy protests; the type of thing that was taken up by the Tea Party. As for allegations of war crimes:




Also, Nader, Chomsky, the ACLU, The World Can't Wait, and a number of others.

As for litigation, the Awlaki case featured support from both the ACLU and the CCR, both fairly liberal organizations. Moreover, I don't recall the Bush Administration being sued over the kill-list. Detention issues, yes, but not the kill-list.

biccat wrote:
Thanks for supporting my point.

So you really were trying to paint an entire group as hypocritical despite such a charge leaning on explicitly expressed beliefs?

I mean, I expect this from you, but it still doesn't get any less surprising when you do it, especially given its perfectly conceivable that one might believe Bush's action constituted a war crime, but Obama's did not. Indeed, there's a fairly easily made argument that this particular incident fell under the "time of war" exemption regarding the general prohibition on assassination under the UN charter. Its the same argument that was used regarding bin Laden, and the same argument the Bush Administration used regarding targets in Pakistan.

dogma wrote:The "war crimes" protests were all relatively small events, the really large ones were general Iraq War protests, which have continued under Obama, though they're not nearly so focused as the old Iraq protests tended to overlap with general Bush era policy protests; the type of thing that was taken up by the Tea Party.

Are you seriously making the case that the Iraq War protests have continued to an even moderately similar extent to those during the Bush administration? Or that media coverage has been anywhere comparable? Or that protestors in the current group are even a representative sample of those during the Bush administration?

The American left, with the exception of a few dissenters who "raise questions" (e.g. Mr. Maddow) about the current Administration, have largely abandoned their anti-war stance since the Obama administration.

It's further evidence that the "anti-war" crowd was largely composed of those who used the war as a generalized protest against the Bush administration. If they were honest about that, it wouldn't be hypocracy.

dogma wrote:As for litigation, the Awlaki case featured support from both the ACLU and the CCR, both fairly liberal organizations. Moreover, I don't recall the Bush Administration being sued over the kill-list. Detention issues, yes, but not the kill-list.

No American citizens were put on the kill list (which I'm not sure was even in existence prior to the present administration, although I could be wrong on that) during the Bush Administration.

dogma wrote:So you really were trying to paint an entire group as hypocritical despite such a charge leaning on explicitly expressed beliefs?

Yes, I'm trying to paint an entire group as hypocritical because their actions have shown them to be so. Unless you're seriously making the case that the anti-war position and rhetoric of the left is as strong today as it was when Bush was president, you are too.

dogma wrote:I mean, I expect this from you, but it still doesn't get any less surprising when you do it, especially given its perfectly conceivable that one might believe Bush's action constituted a war crime, but Obama's did not.

Please present this argument. How is detention a war crime (and not under the "time of war" exception) while targetted killings are not?

Note that I'm not entirely convinced that this was necessarily illegal, I'm not going to start suggesting that Obama should be impeached (at least not over this). But it raises some important legal & constitutional questions and to dismiss them as "he was a bad guy, he deserved it" is dodging a VERY BIG QUESTION. The detention of "enemy combatants", and even to some extent the 'torture', under Bush was defensible under current law. This killing enters into whole new legal territory that is, at first glance, contrary to US law.

CptJake wrote:You're wrong on this point. There is actually quite and extensive process which ends with a Presidential Finding before missions can even be planned and resourced. But don't let your ignorance of the process keep you from denying it exists. JSOC forces and assets and CIA drones don't get launched and receive permission to conduct a mission like this without an awful lot of work and a very extensive approval process which includes several decision points along the way.

It's already been recognised by everyone involved in this process followed by US agents to move to a kill mission. Given that the alternative would be Obama just saying 'go kill that guy', it was kind a completely fething obvious thing, really.

It was then pointed out that such a process is entirely different from a formalised operation of government, in which checks and balances are in place, and a formal level of oversight is required from one field of government over another.

You ignored this so you could sound smug on the internet. Well done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Presumably declarations of war and capital punishment statutes would technically fit. But as I'm sure you'd point out, these both actually do require oversight (from Congress and/or the Judiciary).

I think the issue isn't what process there is for the decision, but rather what process is available to contest or otherwise avoid the use of lethal force. A prisoner on death row may appeal or seek a pardon, a soldier on the battlefield may lay down his weapons and surrender, even a criminal at gunpoint can surrender.

In case of a targetted killing, there's no way for the subject to realize his imminent demise and surrender into the hands of the authorities.

Yes, that's a good point. I think a requirement of any proper formal process would have some party trying to argue against the need to kill the individual. The difficulty in having that is why trials in absentia are such a god awful idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:So do we actually know there was no oversight, that there was no procedures gone through, or are we just taking Ron Paul's politically biased opinion?

The absence of any statement outlining the formal process is evidence that such a thing is absent. In fact, given that for there to be a formal process it must be publically known*, that absence is evidence that it doesn't exist.



*Just the process itself must be known, not the actual evidence presented therein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Congress authorized war against Al Qaeda.

No, it didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nocturn wrote:It all boils down to this. There might have been oversight, and there might not have been oversight. Either way, there are still classifications that are in place that could prevent us from knowing. Until there's some sort of press conference/release about the issue, it's all just pissing in the wind.

It is possible to publish a statement on the process followed without compromising security. The fact that this hasn't been done is evidence that no such satisfactory process is in place.

Some writings I've found on the topic...

Peter van Buren wrote:

Q: If a foreign organization kills an American overseas for political reasons, it is called…

A: Terrorism.


Q: If the United States kills an American overseas for political reasons, it is called…

A: Justice?

Thomas Paine wrote:
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution“

Glen Greenwald wrote:

"I trust My President and don’t need to see evidence or have due process is the slavish mentality against which Jefferson warned."

"We can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want — including citizens — without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us."

"I know they’re Terrorists because My President said so, so no courts or evidence is required".

"We have evidence to prove our accusations, but it’s secret and we won’t show it to you; instead, the media will go forth and dutifully assure everyone we said there is secret evidence and you’ll just trust us."

Matty, I think you have a point that it is hypocritical to worry about the rights of an American citizen when you support things like drone strikes. However, you should understand that some of us don't support that way of war either. I for one don't think for a second that sending drones around the world to kill people from the sky is a good idea.

Tom Engelhardt wrote: when we send our armadas of drones out to kill, don’t be surprised if the rest of the world doesn’t see us as the good guys or the heroes, but as terminators. It’s not the best way to make friends and influence people, but once your mindset is permanent war, that’s no longer a priority.

Playing by the rules we've set for ourselves is a sign of the strength of our civilization, not playing by them is a sign of weakness.

If we ignore the context of the discussion, those random quotes make a lot of sense.

biccat wrote:
Are you seriously making the case that the Iraq War protests have continued to an even moderately similar extent to those during the Bush administration?Or that media coverage has been anywhere comparable?

I'm arguing that there are still anti-war protests, even large anti-war protests (mostly by the ANSWER Coalition, though they didn't stage their annual protest this year, probably because combat troops left last year), and that the extent of the protests is not related to the President in power, but troop levels and time from invasion. Media coverage fell off more suddenly, but had more to do with viewer interest than the prevalence of protests.

biccat wrote:
Or that protestors in the current group are even a representative sample of those during the Bush administration?

In this regard I'm arguing that Iraq War protests under Bush were largely protests of Bush first (in that they attracted more people because Bush was so unpopular, across the board), and the Iraq War second.

And, further, that since you're argument is essentially "The left is hypocritical." that it doesn't matter if the sample is representative at all, because the point I'm making is that criticizing such a massive group as hypocritical is unwise.

biccat wrote:
The American left, with the exception of a few dissenters who "raise questions" (e.g. Mr. Maddow) about the current Administration, have largely abandoned their anti-war stance since the Obama administration.

It's further evidence that the "anti-war" crowd was largely composed of those who used the war as a generalized protest against the Bush administration. If they were honest about that, it wouldn't be hypocracy.

Well, no, its still not intrinsically hypocritical. One can prioritize one belief, political party X is superior to political party Y, over another, the Iraq War is bad, without being hypocritical. In fact, for most people, this happens all the time and not just in the political sphere. For example, believing that something your boss has told you to do is stupid, but refraining from saying so because you also believe such an action would impact you negatively.

Hypocrisy is an incredibly difficult charge to make stick, even with regards to a single person, let alone a side of the political spectrum.

biccat wrote:
No American citizens were put on the kill list (which I'm not sure was even in existence prior to the present administration, although I could be wrong on that) during the Bush Administration.

Then I fail to see how litigation could be used as evidence of hypocrisy in this case, though the kill-list did exist under Bush.

The duty to approve or reject putting an individual on the kill list was granted to this small group at the CIA by President Bush, and the responsibility was extended by President Obama.

biccat wrote:
Please present this argument. How is detention a war crime (and not under the "time of war" exception) while targetted killings are not?

Detention? I'm talking about targeted killing. Bush did that too. Granted, not American citizens, but it was certainly a tactic that the former Administration used against Al-Qaeda. It just wasn't the focus of the accusations of war crimes.

biccat wrote:
The detention of "enemy combatants", and even to some extent the 'torture', under Bush was defensible under current law. This killing enters into whole new legal territory that is, at first glance, contrary to US law.

The crux of the issue is whether or not US citizenship supersedes the Authorization to use Force Against Terrorists.

As an aside, Obama actually endorsed the use of assassination (in the context of bin Laden) during his campaign, so this isn't out of left field.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:

biccat wrote:
The detention of "enemy combatants", and even to some extent the 'torture', under Bush was defensible under current law. This killing enters into whole new legal territory that is, at first glance, contrary to US law.

The crux of the issue is whether or not US citizenship supersedes the Authorization to use Force Against Terrorists.

There is nothing in the authorization to use force against terrorists that says US citizenship supersedes anything. The language is pretty clear, if a person can be linked with the organizations behind 9/11 military force has a green light. There are no red lights for US citizenship (or any other nation's), nor are they any red lights for any national borders. There's not even a yellow light in authorization. The problem with the authorization is it's over 10 years old, congress was not planning for a 10 year war, the war is not over yet, and the war will never end. All it takes to keep the authorization going is a single goat fraking cave dweller anywhere in the world to say "Death to America" while claiming to be Al Qaeda and the war keeps going. The war will never be over, and only those naive or ideologically blinded to the facts can believe for 1 minute that we can rid the world of terrorism. As longs as there are terrorists there will be terrorists that will continue the Al Qaeda brand name, there will always be terrorists, thus we will never be able to 100% get rid of Al Qaeda. That being said all anti terrorism laws need to be thought of and planed as permanent solutions rather than temporary emergency measures. The problem will still be around 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 25 years from now, and 50 years for now. Our solutions need to be permanent, and continuing the war for 50 more years at it's current cost in dollars and civil liberties is not a sustainable plan.

Ahtman wrote:If we ignore the context of the discussion, those random quotes make a lot of sense.

I'm not sure what you mean. Those quotes were not relevant? Perhaps I'm missing the context of the discussion. I didn't pull them out of a hat, I've been reading about this topic in places other than DakkaDakka, and thought I'd share some of what I'd found.

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:So do we actually know there was no oversight, that there was no procedures gone through, or are we just taking Ron Paul's politically biased opinion?

The absence of any statement outlining the formal process is evidence that such a thing is absent. In fact, given that for there to be a formal process it must be publically known*, that absence is evidence that it doesn't exist.

*Just the process itself must be known, not the actual evidence presented therein.

People in this thread have stated that there is, in fact, a formal process that is known. so this doesn't ring true to me.

Of course it is not true.

How many people know the process to conduct a threat assessment for a sensitive facility (say a nuke power plant).

Think the process is public? Think there is NO formal process just because it is not public?

How about the formal process used by a hedge fund manager to determine what he sells/buys? Just because the process is not public do you think it does not exist?

It is frankly silly to think that just because a process is not publically known that it does not exist.

CptJake wrote:It is frankly silly to think that just because a process is not publically known that it does not exist.

Or the fact it isn't publicly known doesn't make a country (lets not limit this to the US) the same as terrorists.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:So you really were trying to paint an entire group as hypocritical despite such a charge leaning on explicitly expressed beliefs?

Yes, I'm trying to paint an entire group as hypocritical because their actions have shown them to be so. Unless you're seriously making the case that the anti-war position and rhetoric of the left is as strong today as it was when Bush was president, you are too.

Mate, if Bush was still president, there is absolutely no fething way you would be whinging about this mother fether getting waxed.

None.

Your just shamelessly playing politics and its ridiculous. Just because some left leaning types are hypocritical (they most certainly are!) doesn't mean you have to be as well.

If Bush ordered this guy fragged and Dogma was here saying Bush was in the wrong, you would be here arguing just like now, but you would be defending Bush to the hilt, and everyone who knows you, knows it.

So just.. you know. Take the moral high ground, and stop.

mattyrm wrote:If Bush ordered this guy fragged and Dogma was here saying Bush was in the wrong, you would be here arguing just like now, but you would be defending Bush to the hilt, and everyone who knows you, knows it.

While I wasn't present here when Bush was president, I did have some good discussions with friends regarding some of the other actions of the Bush Administration. particularly whether drone strikes outside of Afghanistan and Iraq (and US troops entering Pakistan in pursuit of AQ) were valid.

However, if we're being honest, lots of people here would be on the opposite side of the fence if Bush had been the one to frag this fether.

It's an important question that deserves attention, and the people who normally would bring it up are unsurprisingly quiet. Ron Paul, for all his faults, is at least consistent in his criticism.

Melissia wrote:People in this thread have stated that there is, in fact, a formal process that is known. so this doesn't ring true to me.

Then link to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Of course it is not true.

How many people know the process to conduct a threat assessment for a sensitive facility (say a nuke power plant).

Think the process is public? Think there is NO formal process just because it is not public?

When it comes to issues of policing and the limitations on government to be able to kill people, yes the process needs to be public for it to represent any control over government.

How about the formal process used by a hedge fund manager to determine what he sells/buys? Just because the process is not public do you think it does not exist?

You're going to argue that the processes of a hedge fund manager and the processes of the government are the same? Are you really going to do that?

It is frankly silly to think that just because a process is not publically known that it does not exist.

Killing a high ranking terrorist doesn't make us as bad as them.

sebster wrote:You don't have to be as bad as terrorists to be doing something that's you shouldn't be doing. That's setting a really low bar.

I was responding specifically to the quote that conflated the USA and terrorist organizations.