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.

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.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Those are some damn fine suits. Damn fine.

Is that a Presidential belt buckle? I mean, does it have the seal of the United States on it? Cool.

Nice duds.

Edit: I agree with d-USA on this one.

I actually might have to locate a purple tie

Evidetnly there may have been two VPs in that pic...

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.

As it was, they wiped out a threat.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

Fixed twice. "Irregardless" is not a word.

And here I thought American Dad was talking out of its ass

Ouch....drone strike on a word....

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.

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.

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.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

Easy E wrote:

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?

Politics is kraaaaaaazay.

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...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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]

d-usa wrote:

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.