Obama Admin: Legal Theory for Whacking US Citizen "classified."

[mtnbkr]

IMO, a citizen enjoys those protections until they voluntarily renounce their citizenship.
Murdering or advocating murder of innocents?  Would you accept applying that standard to regular murderers?  Would you apply that standard to someone who advocates armed resistance to govt tyranny?  Both technically meet your stated acid test.

Sorry, I don't want to give that power to our govt.  A citizen enjoys the full protection of our Constitution and laws.  Period. 

Chris

[Tallpine]

And the moment it becomes something other than an evil murderer, my reaction will be quite different.
...

At that moment it will be too late, although it probably already is anyway.

I want AQ smashed inside my lifetime.  Maybe I will be labeled a terrorist myself by SorryCharlie Schumer for being against taxes in three years or something.  I will have to deal with that cr@p at that time.

I'm pretty sure you will 

I'm much more concerned about the terrorists in Washington DC 

[TommyGunn]

At that moment it will be too late, although it probably already is anyway.


I'm pretty sure you will 

I'm much more concerned about the terrorists in Washington DC 

You're not advocating suicide .... are you?

[zxcvbob]

Terr'rism doesn't really have a definition, the President knows it when he sees it (it's kind of like the Supreme Court and pornography that way.)  So it means whatever is expedient at the time (little chance of abuse there, right?) -- and avoids that whole "bill of attainder" issue by keeping the legislature out of the loop.

It is not totally without constitutionality; Article 1 Section 9 allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion.

[Tallpine]

You're not advocating suicide .... are you?

No, but it seems like you are 

[De Selby]

What I find most interesting is this myth that the US in the past would do this sort of thing in a war - wrong.  People accused of helping the enemy got arrested and tried. 

I agree with mtnbkr that citizenship should come with more protections.  In this particular example, I can't see why the threat of terrorism is so great that the government needs powers that it didn't have during the civil war. 

[KD5NRH]

I agree with mtnbkr that citizenship should come with more protections.  In this particular example, I can't see why the threat of terrorism is so great that the government needs powers that it didn't have during the civil war. 

Well, we could always go back to burning and looting cities when they harbor those who attack us.

[De Selby]

Well, we could always go back to burning and looting cities when they harbor those who attack us.

We did destroy a number of cities in the war on terror - and during the former burn and loot times, it was still a crime firnsoldiers to shoot suspects off the battlefield without trial.

[TommyGunn]

No, but it seems like you are 

I am advocating that we understand we are in a war against radical Islamic terrorists and that we have to defeat them by either killing them or placing them in some situation in which they will be unable to continue their fight.
Is that so hard to understand?

I understand there are difficulties involving the use of the word "terrorist" and that we can't always be sure how it will be applied, but as long as we can defeat the Islamic-nuts we'll be able to deal better with the ones in D.C.

It's awful tough to fight more than one war at a time.  FDR managed to whack the Nazis and Tojo at the same time ... but I doubt we're up to it.  So the sooner we defeat Radical Islam the sooner we can take care of the nuts in DC.

And the more likely we'll be able to do it through the ballot box, rather than the cartridge box ....

Clear enough?   

[freakazoid]

Who the F decides?

That's classified too.

[Tallpine]

I am advocating that we understand we are in a war against radical Islamic terrorists and that we have to defeat them by either killing them or placing them in some situation in which they will be unable to continue their fight.
Is that so hard to understand?

I understand there are difficulties involving the use of the word "terrorist" and that we can't always be sure how it will be applied, but as long as we can defeat the Islamic-nuts we'll be able to deal better with the ones in D.C.

It's awful tough to fight more than one war at a time.  FDR managed to whack the Nazis and Tojo at the same time ... but I doubt we're up to it.  So the sooner we defeat Radical Islam the sooner we can take care of the nuts in DC.

And the more likely we'll be able to do it through the ballot box, rather than the cartridge box ....

Clear enough?   

Like mud 

So giving the nuts in DC more power is going to help us take care of them later 

[TommyGunn]

Like mud 

So giving the nuts in DC more power is going to help us take care of them later 

  OK.  I tried.  I am not a miracle-worker.


Look , what would YOU do, leave  Al Qaida alone?

[freakazoid]

Something tells me that there actually is a middle ground somewhere between classifying the legal theory for "whacking" this guy, and doing absolutely nothing about terrorism. Whats next, saying the TSA is needed to combat terrorism?

[TommyGunn]

Something tells me that there actually is a middle ground somewhere between classifying the legal theory for "whacking" this guy, and doing absolutely nothing about terrorism. Whats next, saying the TSA is needed to combat terrorism?

Oh don't get me wrong freakazoid, the legal theory should be made public. I have no problem with that at all.

[De Selby]

Something tells me that there actually is a middle ground somewhere between classifying the legal theory for "whacking" this guy, and doing absolutely nothing about terrorism. Whats next, saying the TSA is needed to combat terrorism?

Good point - like, why can't we arrest al qaeda suspects and try them for mass murders??? 

Why is roaming the world and snatching them such a terrible idea?  And why shouldn't their crimes be exposed to the public?  Trials are about involving the citizenry in justice as much ad they are about determining the truth

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I just want to know Obama's justification. I want to see if Jimmy Carter would qualify for a drone. 

I don't object to drilling Anwar, but to killing a US citizen with a drone in foreign lands. It's the kind of thing Bush got in huge trouble for, and it amuses me mightily that Obama's signing off on it. It's the kind of thing Putin has done. I don't expect it to be used on non-terrorists anytime soon, but it's bad precedent.

[Tallpine]

Had we totally exhausted our options of attempting to arrest and extradite this fellow ?


I'm not sure that committing acts of war in third party countries is helping our cause.

[mtnbkr]

Had we totally exhausted our options of attempting to arrest and extradite this fellow ?


I'm not sure that committing acts of war in third party countries is helping our cause.

So you're ok with Al Qaida killing babies and nuns in Montana?  What kind of leftist pantywaist are you?

Chris

[Fitz]

So you're ok with Al Qaida killing babies and nuns in Montana?  What kind of leftist pantywaist are you?

Chris

Doesn't matter. It's clearly a fabricated story since Obama promised to give back the rights Evil Bush (tm) took away, close Guantanamo, End the war on Terror, and leave marijuana dispensaries alone.

Wait.... what?

He didn't do any of that?

[TommyGunn]

Good point - like, why can't we arrest al qaeda suspects and try them for mass murders??? 

Why is roaming the world and snatching them such a terrible idea?  And why shouldn't their crimes be exposed to the public?  Trials are about involving the citizenry in justice as much ad they are about determining the truth

This is a war, not a police action.  If it's "supposed" to be "illegal" to go into a foreign country to "kill" AQ thugs, why would it be any more legal to kidnap them? 

[Fitz]

This is a war, not a police action.  If it's "supposed" to be "illegal" to go into a foreign country to "kill" AQ thugs, why would it be any more legal to kidnap them? 

Don't try to apply common sense to this argument. It won't work.

[mtnbkr]

Just to make sure...

We're OK with the US govt, the same govt that has shown malice and incompetence previously in terms of our God-given rights, having the power to declare a US Citizen a Terrorist and execute that person without a trial or any legal protections?  Nobody is concerned that this power may be misused, misapplied, or abused in the future?

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

Just to make sure...

We're OK with the US govt, the same govt that has shown malice and incompetence previously in terms of our God-given rights, having the power to declare a US Citizen a Terrorist and execute that person without a trial or any legal protections?  Nobody is concerned that this power may be misused, misapplied, or abused in the future?Chris

Nah. Never.  I trust the .gov to the fullest.   

[Fitz]

Why didn't anyone have a problem with this when they PUT HIM ON the kill list?

Fine then, right? Carry out what you say you're doing and you're suddenly wrong?


This Aint Hell sums up my thoughts nicely

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=26777



Bottom line. He was a prominent Al Qaeda leader who participated in the planning of murder. Congress voted to authorize military force against al qaeda. He was a prominent member in that organization.

This was an act of war. Not execution. He was a combatant.

[Tallpine]

This was an act of war.

At least we can agree on that