Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on October 03, 2011, 11:46:23 AM
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/
I call righteous BS on this.
If Awlaki is a turd-bag treasonous Islamo-fundi plotting to kill Americans on a foreign battlefield... whack him. That's fine.
But there is NO JUSTIFICATION for hiding the legal theory that allows a POTUS to justify his actions in such a regard.
The law of the land is above the troubles of the times.
No such thing as "classified" in this matter, to me.
-
For the last 2½ years I have vascillated between believing the Obama administration is incompetant or outright commie/pinko/fascist/evil/destructive/choose your own invective here, but this is just plain messed up.
Legal Theory for Whacking US Citizen "classified."
What the ------???
You classify things when you need to keep information from the enemy they may be able to use against you, or to strengthen their own efforts.
How can a ***** legal theory like this have any effect such as that?
I call righteous BS on this.
You & me both.
-
If Awlaki is a turd-bag treasonous Islamo-fundi plotting to kill Americans on a foreign battlefield... whack him. That's fine.
That's the part I don't get; why can't we alter due process to allow for a trial-in-absentia, provided the accused is given adequate notice, (several months would have been insignificant in this case, since they could have given the notice a long time ago) opportunity for safe, paid travel to the court with promise of same to get home if acquitted, etc.? Surely we have the Constitutionally required two witnesses to testify that he's been at least giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Get a verdict and death sentence, and then carry it out through whatever means necessary.
Heck, get the sentence, then issue a Letter of Marque for a tenth of what the mission would cost, and watch the hunting guide and security companies team up to make a killing off the killing. How many people would pay $50k+ to legally hunt humans, much less terrorists?
-
For the last 2½ years I have vascillated between believing the Obama administration is incompetant or outright commie/pinko/fascist/evil/destructive/choose your own invective here, but this is just plain messed up.
Legal Theory for Whacking US Citizen "classified."
What the ------???
You classify things when you need to keep information from the enemy they may be able to use against you, or to strengthen their own efforts.
How can a ***** legal theory like this have any effect such as that?
You & me both.
When is a nation of laws not a nation of laws? When the nation is not allowed to know what the laws are.
-
Arguments for or against sending a missile up his ass aside.....WTF?
-
Those laws are sequestered along with his birth certificate and college transcripts.
-
I wasn't aware GWB got a third term.....oh...wait.... :laugh:
-
I wasn't aware GWB got a third term.....oh...wait.... :laugh:
It amazes me that there's not a FREAKING HUGE outcry over just that fact. Obama's done and allowed stuff that Bush would have been CRUCIFIED for, in both the media and "the court of public opinion" - and damned few people are saying jack about it. How's that work again?
Oh yeah - he's a DEMOCRAT. That makes it all okay. :facepalm:
-
It amazes me that there's not a FREAKING HUGE outcry over just that fact. Obama's done and allowed stuff that Bush would have been CRUCIFIED for, in both the media and "the court of public opinion" - and damned few people are saying jack about it. How's that work again?
Oh yeah - he's a DEMOCRAT. That makes it all okay. :facepalm:
Exactly. And many (R)'s are riding him like a rented mule over policies that are identical to ones that GWB had in place. Some are awakening to the charade.
-
Exactly. And many (R)'s are riding him like a rented mule over policies that are identical to ones that GWB had in place created. Some are awakening to the charade.
FIFY
Chris
-
Exactly. And many (R)'s are riding him like a rented mule over policies that are identical to ones that GWB had in place. Some are awakening to the charade.
But of course few will vote for a "non-mainstream" candidate ;/
-
Bush was just the warm-up act, as Bush the Elder was the impresario. Check out "Operation Wide Receiver."
-
Exactly. And many (R)'s are riding him like a rented mule over policies that are identical to ones that GWB had in place. Some are awakening to the charade.
Yup - works both ways, and they both disgust me equally (even if I don't always make that clear).
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
More is coming out about this, finally.
Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.
A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.
How statesmanly!
How bold!
Such visionary and pioneering leadership!
This is a Commander in Chief we can all place our utmost faith in! Surely, he has now demonstrated that he would never let the sour tarnish of electioneering taint his steadfast resolve to protect our Nation!
[barf]
Middle-management bureaucrats craft "hit lists" for upper-management bureaucrats to approve... and POTUS is not involved in approval. Only if he decides he wants to dis-approve.
And this Executive structure has not been commissioned/authorized by Congress.
-
Everything old is new again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
Or, maybe power-seeking folk have similar desires and end up with similar solutions.
-
More old is new:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sacer
-
I wasn't aware GWB got a third term.....oh...wait.... :laugh:
Oddly, this was my thoughts as well.
If you loved Bush, well, you should have few if any reasons to hate Obama as he is doing 90% or greater the same things as Bush.
If you love Obama, you should hold Bush in equal regard because he did the same things that Obama is doing now.
Say that to either a hardcore Dem or Repub and watch them mentally try to contort themselves to find something to say other than "nuh-uh!"
-
Oddly, this was my thoughts as well.
If you loved Bush, well, you should have few if any reasons to hate Obama as he is doing 90% or greater the same things as Bush.
If you love Obama, you should hold Bush in equal regard because he did the same things that Obama is doing now.
Say that to either a hardcore Dem or Repub and watch them mentally try to contort themselves to find something to say other than "nuh-uh!"
Yes, but BHO does teh same thing with the Fedex hand gesture, so he gets told how brilliant he is.
Actually, there are enough differences that are glaring and would earn you a deserved "WTF" look. Obamacare being just one.
The truly disconcerting comparison/contrast is not GWB/BHO, but BHO2007/BHO2011.
-
Yes, but BHO does teh same thing with the Fedex hand gesture, so he gets told how brilliant he is.
Actually, there are enough differences that are glaring and would earn you a deserved "WTF" look. Obamacare being just one.
Duh. But about the Fed Ex thing. Huh?
-
Duh. But about the Fed Ex thing. Huh?
http://youtu.be/zNCrMEOqHpc
-
http://youtu.be/zNCrMEOqHpc
Thank you.
-
Yes, but BHO does teh same thing with the Fedex hand gesture, so he gets told how brilliant he is.
Actually, there are enough differences that are glaring and would earn you a deserved "WTF" look. Obamacare being just one.
The truly disconcerting comparison/contrast is not GWB/BHO, but BHO2007/BHO2011.
Obamacare is a near replica of the plan McCain proposed in his response to Obama's original desire to go to single-payer. A whole metric butt load of "conservatives" supported him. So no, Obama hasn't really done much that the (R) party wasn't doing or going to do.
-
'Cause we know how "conservatives" support John McCain. ???
-
Oddly, this was my thoughts as well.
If you loved Bush, well, you should have few if any reasons to hate Obama as he is doing 90% or greater the same things as Bush.
If you love Obama, you should hold Bush in equal regard because he did the same things that Obama is doing now.
Say that to either a hardcore Dem or Repub and watch them mentally try to contort themselves to find something to say other than "nuh-uh!"
Let's see...
Back when I "hated" Bush, I was a dirty leftist hippie.
Now when I "hate" Obama, I am a cold hearted rich racist.
;/
-
Let's see...
Back when I "hated" Bush, I was a dirty leftist hippie.
Now when I "hate" Obama, I am a cold hearted rich racist.
;/
It pays to be versatile..... =D
;)
-
It pays to be versatile..... =D
;)
But it doesn't pay much
-
'Cause we know how "conservatives" support John McCain. ???
Heh.
-
It pays to be versatile..... =D
;)
I played the flute and I played the harp depending where I was
...
My father he was Orange and my mother she was Green
=D
-
Let's see...
Back when I "hated" Bush, I was a dirty leftist hippie.
Now when I "hate" Obama, I am a cold hearted rich racist.
;/
Well, all I thought I was doing was questioning some of the accusations/facts used against Bush and that apparently made me a Bush fanboy.
Either way, that is why we need the keep the Tea Party stuff going a bit longer to get enough additional conservative candidates in there put a little pressure on the compromisers to they don't sell us down the river so often.
-
Well, all I thought I was doing was questioning some of the accusations/facts used against Bush and that apparently made me a Bush fanboy.
Yes. There are apparently no stops between BushistehHitler and BushistehSantaClaus. The same goes for McCain, Romney and Perry, of course.
-
Yes. There are apparently no stops between BushistehHitler and BushistehSantaClaus. The same goes for McCain, Romney and Perry, of course.
Obama is about 95% bad whereas Bush was only about 60% bad =|
-
Obama is about 95% bad whereas Bush was only about 60% bad =|
Seriously, 60%? Man, try like 35% ...... but I see history through rose-colored glasses since Obama took over ...... [tinfoil]
-
Seriously, 60%?
Seriously. I was being kind.
-
Let's see...
Back when I "hated" Bush, I was a dirty leftist hippie.
Now when I "hate" Obama, I am a cold hearted rich racist.
;/
Same here. Apparently when you disagree with some particular thing, it means you must hate the person. And everyone of the entire party. Bush administration warned of the housing crisis. Obama is pushing for export control reform. Both are good. Implementations may have sucked, but still does not negate the positive aim of the thing.
-
Seriously. I was being kind.
Aw, don't be so kind, tell us what you REALLY think! >:D
-
Aw, don't be so kind, tell us what you REALLY think! >:D
So what's the real difference on the issues between Bush and Obama - maybe 10-15% ???
Other than gun control and environment (and some social issues that the feds have no business in anyway) I don't see much difference at all.
Oh, and character - as much as I disagreed with him, GW seemed like a much more likable guy.
-
I don't have a problem with Anwar al-Awlaki being terminated....he was actively involved with acts of war against the United States while in a foreign country....that's justification enough for me....
....but the fact that the justification for Obama has to be "classified" is really disturbing....makes me wonder just where the line is being drawn on this.....
-
So what's the real difference on the issues between Bush and Obama - maybe 10-15% ???
Other than gun control and environment (and some social issues that the feds have no business in anyway) I don't see much difference at all.
Oh, and character - as much as I disagreed with him, GW seemed like a much more likable guy.
The gun control issues seem kind of moot, with the Democrats generally scared straight on the gun issue. I would think judicial appointments, and federal funding for embryo destruction were more important differences.
-
So what's the real difference on the issues between Bush and Obama - maybe 10-15% ???
Other than gun control and environment (and some social issues that the feds have no business in anyway) I don't see much difference at all.
Oh, and character - as much as I disagreed with him, GW seemed like a much more likable guy.
Seriously, while I didn't like what Dubya did on some things (increasing medicrae and the no child left behind) and his spending, Obama makes him look like a piker by comparison. He's quadrupled the debt and NOTHING Dubya did was as bad as Obamacare -- IMHO.
And yeah on the likeability. Obama is formulaic -- a pedantic college professor lecturing his lessers.
It's pretty bad in the world of politics when even the ones who are osternsibly "on my side" are still bad.
It's a choice between a fast and slow road to h3ll........ :'(
-
It's a choice between a fast and slow road to h3ll........
Well, that's the truth =(
-
So what's the real difference on the issues between Bush and Obama - maybe 10-15% ???
Other than gun control and environment (and some social issues that the feds have no business in anyway) I don't see much difference at all.
Oh, and character - as much as I disagreed with him, GW seemed like a much more likable guy.
One thing which is behind the scenes: Bush didn't fill all the appointed cabinet departments with looney lefties who have done nothing but add new regulations and put up road blocks to oil exploration. That is less apparent, but very important.
-
And yeah on the likeability. Obama is formulaic -- a pedantic college professor lecturing his lessers.
It's not just that Bush is more likable. Obama goes out of his way to rankle those on the other side, which Bush would have considered un-presidential, and was just too gracious to do. When Bush was asked about anti-war protestors, he would say something like, "They disagree with me, and they have a right to their opinion, but I believe this is something we have to do." When Obama finally acknowledged that he had heard of the Tea Party, he said, "We've got these people out here waving tea bags around..."
Or more simply put, Bush really did try to be "a uniter," while Obama just naturally acts as "a divider."
-
It's not just that Bush is more likable. Obama goes out of his way to rankle those on the other side, which Bush would have considered un-presidential, and was just too gracious to do.
That is very true. Other than that one "hot mike" incident with the reporter, Bush was always publicly gracious to the other side. He never rose to the snark, while Obama is often the snark instigator. Whether you liked Bush's policies or not, he and the First Lady were always gracious and polite.
-
It's not just that Bush is more likable. Obama goes out of his way to rankle those on the other side, which Bush would have considered un-presidential, and was just too gracious to do. When Bush was asked about anti-war protestors, he would say something like, "They disagree with me, and they have a right to their opinion, but I believe this is something we have to do." When Obama finally acknowledged that he had heard of the Tea Party, he said, "We've got these people out here waving tea bags around..."
Or more simply put, Bush really did try to be "a uniter," while Obama just naturally acts as "a divider."
Racist! :P
No, really - you're exactly correct. ;)
GW seems like the kind of guy that - minus all the Secret Service stuff - I'd be happy to have move into my remote rural neighborhood. Barack is the type who would be immediately griping about people's "junk" and calling in "shots fired" the first time I target practice on my 40 acres. =(
-
Other than gun control...
Not as much, actually. Although Bush certainly didn't want to go as far as Obama probably wants to, he still would have signed a second AWB if Congress had put it before him. It's a difference in degree rather than kind.
-
Bush/all the Bushes were establishment politicians so therefore did some things we really didn't like. I figure you cut Bush and he bleeds red, white, and blue. Obama, just commie red, that's the difference. Bush was raised in a family where the business was killing and subverting commies. Obama? Well...
There's a huge difference in there, the same one between Rino McCain and Obama. One hates America, that's enought for me to have voted for pretty much any other guy.
-
I don't have a problem with Anwar al-Awlaki being terminated....he was actively involved with acts of war against the United States while in a foreign country....that's justification enough for me....
....but the fact that the justification for Obama has to be "classified" is really disturbing....makes me wonder just where the line is being drawn on this.....
Where's the proof that awlaki was involved in acts of violence?
Generally us citizens should be able to expect that the government will prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before it kills them. That's a pretty fundamental check on government power, and it's just been discarded.
In time we'll see this as a turning point for the united states
-
Where's the proof that awlaki was involved in acts of violence?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
-
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Yeah, why don't you post the rest of the story? Like, how you prove treason for example...
-
Yeah, why don't you post the rest of the story? Like, how you prove treason for example...
Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act shouldn't be hard. His YouTube videos alone had quite a bit more than two views.
-
Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act shouldn't be hard. His YouTube videos alone had quite a bit more than two views.
:facepalm: Ziiiiinnnnngggg!
Awlaki was a highly placed AQ member. He got what he deserved.
I don't like that the legal "theory" is classified but good riddance to evil rubbish so far as Awlaki is cocnerned.
-
Yeah, why don't you post the rest of the story? Like, how you prove treason for example...
You are trolling... either that or you're delusional.
There are mountains of proof of him aiding terrorists, and his involvement in the detroit airliner plot.
As far as I'm concerned, he lost his rights as a citizen when he became a traitor.
Tell me, if he was not a US citizen by birth, would anyone care? As far as I'm concerned he's an enemy combatant. No different than any other scumbag we've sent to their deaths in the war on terror.
My problem is that the legal theory is classified, but I have NO problems with the US exterminating this sack of *expletive deleted*it.
Just as I have no problem stomping on a cockroach
-
Fits, have a think about the potential consequences of allowingthe government to kill people without proving their guilt - mountains of news articles and anti-American rants cannot be the basis of government killing in a free country.
You don't have to love this guy to see the problem with that. Nor do you need to love him to see why arbitrarily deciding who gets "citizenship protections" (as if the right not to be executed without trial has something to do with citizenship) cannot exist in a free country.
This is how oppressive regimes start - they target people who are hated by the population. Now all that needs to happen is for the people who most influence policy to decide some other group (maybe gun owners?) is "traitorous" and "threatening America."
It is a certainty that you'll find this power turned against someone you're less enthusiastic about killing.
-
What is the difference between killing this guy and killing any other terrorist leader? His plots failed, so he's not considered the enemy?
The burden of proof is a much different animal in war. He was an enemy combatant, no different than any other terrorist leader we've killed in the war. Did you also have a problem with the death of Bin Laden? After all, he didn't fly the airplanes into the twin towers.
In my mind, motivating and cultivating terrorists (even ignoring for a second his failed plot) is only one small step removed from doing it oneself.
Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone.
I will excuse myself from this discussion now. You tend to see things a different way when you've seen, up close and personal, the results of the work of these people. To continue any further in this argument may cause me to walk off the high road, and I don't wish to do that.
-
Fits, have a think about the potential consequences of allowingthe government to kill people without proving their guilt
Has there ever been a nation whose government was not allowed to do that?
What is the difference between killing this guy and killing any other terrorist leader? His plots failed, so he's not considered the enemy?
The burden of proof is a much different animal in war. He was an enemy combatant, no different than any other terrorist leader we've killed in the war.
Nothing to add.
-
The "battlefield" exception to our homicide laws doesn't make any sense in this context - there isn't anywhere on the planet that is off limits to the war on terror. To use that justification is to say that the government should have the power to kill anyone anywhere, as long as it asserts (to itself only) that the person is a terrorist.
It defies belief that to question such a government power would provoke so much opposition on a forum that focuses on individual rights.
I don't see anyone saying bin laden, Manson, or this guy should have been left alone. What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people. That is why the colonists insisted on juries; they prevented arbitrary and political violence from being used against the citizenry.
As it stands now, we've basically given Obama the power to kill anyone he wants without proving anything, and to do that anywhere in the world.
How could that possibly go wrong? Doesn't take too much imagination nor any love for awlaki to see the problem
-
If Al-Awalki had renounced his US citizenship, would that make a difference either legally or morally?
-
The "battlefield" exception to our homicide laws doesn't make any sense in this context - there isn't anywhere on the planet that is off limits to the war on terror. To use that justification is to say that the government should have the power to kill anyone anywhere, as long as it asserts (to itself only) that the person is a terrorist.
What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people.
OK, so you're opposed to doing that to American citizens.
You don't have to love this guy to see the problem with that. Nor do you need to love him to see why arbitrarily deciding who gets "citizenship protections" (as if the right not to be executed without trial has something to do with citizenship) cannot exist in a free country.
But you don't want us to do that to non-Americans, either.
How are we supposed to wage war, again? ???
-
I posted on this subject way back in early 2010 after seeing some obscure reports that the Government was arbitrarily assigning people -including US Citizens- to a hit list without anything more than thumbs up of the President as a legal requirement. I remember being kind of ridiculed by some members back then for even considering this to be a potential reality.
The Legal Theory is "classified" because it probably adds up to nothing that would fly in court. Seriously, allowing the Executive branch to target and kill Citizens and then deny access to any meaningful legal explanation is a power you DO NOT want ANY administration to have. Killing this one Citizen may have been good for short term security, but allowing a Government to do so in the way that they did without question is a far greater threat to the citizenry than the occasional hijacking or blown up building.
-
I hate to admit this, but I see where both sides are coming from in this....I don't know what the right answer is....guys, please keep this civil so I can read and learn more....
-
The "battlefield" exception to our homicide laws doesn't make any sense in this context - there isn't anywhere on the planet that is off limits to the war on terror. To use that justification is to say that the government should have the power to kill anyone anywhere, as long as it asserts (to itself only) that the person is a terrorist.
It defies belief that to question such a government power would provoke so much opposition on a forum that focuses on individual rights.
I suspect that's because most people here consider terrorists to be legitimate targets during war where ever they are. These terrorists are liable to operate many places in this world. And since when is the power to "kill terrorists" the "power to kill anyone anywhere?" We're not talking about that, we're talking about the power to off terrorists. It's not like SEAL teams are infiltrating senior citizen rest homes and offing 97 year olds who are bedridden with oxygen tents....though you might be able to assume that from your phraseology.
I don't see anyone saying bin laden, Manson, or this guy should have been left alone. What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people. That is why the colonists insisted on juries; they prevented arbitrary and political violence from being used against the citizenry.
As it stands now, we've basically given Obama the power to kill anyone he wants without proving anything, and to do that anywhere in the world.
How could that possibly go wrong? Doesn't take too much imagination nor any love for awlaki to see the problem
Get back to us when the govt. actually DOES start offing anyone without proving anything. Anyone with the sense God gave a pump handle knows Awlaki was working with the Islamic terrorists.
A lot bad "might" happen .... but let's not borrow trouble. There isn't a law or a principle or an action that couldn't be bastardized, misappropriated and/or misused and in doing so, injure, maim or kill people. But you don't stop govt. from doing it's responsibility and what's good because it "might" someday somehow do bad.
-
I suspect that's because most people here consider terrorists to be legitimate targets during war where ever they are. These terrorists are liable to operate many places in this world. And since when is the power to "kill terrorists" the "power to kill anyone anywhere?" We're not talking about that, we're talking about the power to off terrorists. It's not like SEAL teams are infiltrating senior citizen rest homes and offing 97 year olds who are bedridden with oxygen tents....though you might be able to assume that from your phraseology.
Get back to us when the govt. actually DOES start offing anyone without proving anything. Anyone with the sense God gave a pump handle knows Awlaki was working with the Islamic terrorists.
A lot bad "might" happen .... but let's not borrow trouble. There isn't a law or a principle or an action that couldn't be bastardized, misappropriated and/or misused and in doing so, injure, maim or kill people. But you don't stop govt. from doing it's responsibility and what's good because it "might" someday somehow do bad.
Quoting for posterity and because govt never abuses the power we allow it.
Chris
-
The yellow, it burns teh eyes!
Seriously, allowing the Executive branch to target and kill Citizens and then deny access to any meaningful legal explanation is a power you DO NOT want ANY administration to have.
Well it is in the name, :lol:
I don't see how it being classified is helping at all. [tinfoil]
-
The best that this guy could allegedly come up with was the underwear bomber ???
;/
-
How are we supposed to wage war, again? ???
Just drop nukes at a location near the terrorist....if he dies from the radiation and blast, it's his own fault....
-
The word terrorist keeps coming up with no consideration as to how that label should be applied - if you think being a terrorist should trigger the governments right to kill you, then there needs to be some process around determining who is and isn't a terrorist. "because the government said so" creates a blank check for government killing.
In no US war has the government asserted the right to kill people it accuses of aiding the enemy without process; the battlefield rule works fine when you've fielded an army and it encounters other armed forces.
Fistful, if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam. That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror.
-
Fistful, if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam. That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror.
Um, wasn't he killed in Yemen? Yemen is well outside the United States, as I recall.
I'm not comparing it to any war. I'm asking how we could possibly wage war when you seemed to be saying that the government must hold a trial before it kills anyone. Now that you seem to have backed up from those statements a bit, I think I have my answer. Thank you.
-
The word terrorist keeps coming up with no consideration as to how that label should be applied - if you think being a terrorist should trigger the governments right to kill you, then there needs to be some process around determining who is and isn't a terrorist. "because the government said so" creates a blank check for government killing.
In no US war has the government asserted the right to kill people it accuses of aiding the enemy without process; the battlefield rule works fine when you've fielded an army and it encounters other armed forces.
Fistful, if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam. That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror.
The terrs are out on a battlefield. I don't see why it should be so hard to identify them; we had photos of Awlaki as well as Osama Bin Laden. For others, when they're out in the field and shooting at you, they're probably not the Girl Scouts trying to sell you cookies.
...if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam. That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror.
That's a ridiculous analogy. Awlaki, IIRC was in Yemen, a foreign country.
During WW2 we got intel that the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was going to be on a certain aircraft at a specific time. FDR himself issued an order to intercept and to shoot his aircraft down. A flight of USAAF P-38s intercepted and shot the plane down, killing Yamamoto. This admiral had been in charge of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
It was legal then and it's legal now.
-
It's so hard to keep up on all the news these days.
So, when did we declare war on Yemen ???
-
Are they on the state sponsored terror list?
-
I am amazed at how a lot people can feel so safe and smug thinking that the term "terrorist" will only ever be applied to people that look a certain way or belong to certain group, especially when we are told flat out that the reasons for considering a Citizen a "terrorist" and issuing their extrajudicial execution can be "classified", i.e. not subject to any explanation, scrutiny or burden of proof.
Isn't it obvious that "Terrorist" is a catch-all word? It doesn't really hold any concrete and definite meaning as it can be spun in so many ways. Today it may be the bearded Muslim guy, tomorrow it may be someone advocating resistance to unfair taxation and a runaway central bank. Who the F decides?
-
I am amazed at how a lot people can feel so safe and smug thinking that the term "terrorist" will only ever be applied to people that look a certain way or belong to certain group, especially when we are told flat out that the reasons for considering a Citizen a "terrorist" and issuing their extrajudicial execution can be "classified", i.e. not subject to any explanation, scrutiny or burden of proof.
Isn't it obvious that "Terrorist" is a catch-all word? It doesn't really hold any concrete and definite meaning as it can be spun in so many ways. Today it may be the bearded Muslim guy, tomorrow it may be someone advocating resistance to unfair taxation and a runaway central bank. Who the F decides?
And the moment it becomes something other than an evil murderer, my reaction will be quite different.
For now, it's someone who has advocated, and planned, to murder innocent people. I ask again, though I was ignored... would it be different if he was successful in the detroit plot?
A terrorist by anyone's definition.
-
And the moment it becomes something other than an evil murderer, my reaction will be quite different.
For now, it's someone who has advocated, and planned, to murder innocent people. I ask again, though I was ignored... would it be different if he was successful in the detroit plot?
A terrorist by anyone's definition.
He's a US Citizen. US Citizens enjoy the protection of our legal system. Other "terrorists" that happened to be US Citizens received trials (Timothy Mcveigh, "Beltway Snipers" to name a few). There is noise about "domestic terrorists" in our govt today. Do you want to risk being labeled a terrorist because of your limited govt beliefs and not have the right to a trial to defend yourself?
If he's not a US Citizen, then I don't care, but Citizenship confers rights and those rights must be respected.
Chris
-
at one point does one lose citizenship protections?
I'd say the moment you start murdering (or advocating the murder) of innocents.
-
I am amazed at how a lot people can feel so safe and smug thinking that the term "terrorist" will only ever be applied to people that look a certain way or belong to certain group, especially when we are told flat out that the reasons for considering a Citizen a "terrorist" and issuing their extrajudicial execution can be "classified", i.e. not subject to any explanation, scrutiny or burden of proof.
Isn't it obvious that "Terrorist" is a catch-all word? It doesn't really hold any concrete and definite meaning as it can be spun in so many ways. Today it may be the bearded Muslim guy, tomorrow it may be someone advocating resistance to unfair taxation and a runaway central bank. Who the F decides?
What ***** told you we feel so safe and smug about who's being labeled a terrorist?? :facepalm:
I don't -- not when Tea Partiers are, among some circles, considered "terrorists."
What would you have the govt. do; send AQ sympathy cards?
Right now they are a danger.
Our government has always such.
If you believe otherwise ask Randy Weaver.
Ask the Branch Davidians. Oh wait, you can't; they're DEAD. Well, most of 'em.
It's a complicated world we live in. I'm sorry things are not simple. It's not all Roy Rogers-like, good-guys-wear-white, bad-guys-wear-black kind of thing. Ma and apple pie were superceded by improvized explosive devices and cell phone triggeres. Pretty quilt blankets knitted by grandma were superceded by 19 terrorists commandeering fully fueled jetliners and smashing them into buildings, and watching people in those buildings jump to their deaths rather than being fried Colonel Sanders' extra-crispy style.
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.
Life sucks.
'tain't easy.
Deal with it.
-
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
-
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 =(
-
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? [tinfoil] :facepalm: [popcorn]
-
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.
-
You're not advocating suicide .... are you? [tinfoil] :facepalm: [popcorn]
No, but it seems like you are =(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? ???
-
Who the F decides?
That's classified too.
-
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 ???
-
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? :mad:
-
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? ???
-
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.
-
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
-
I just want to know Obama's justification. I want to see if Jimmy Carter would qualify for a drone. :P
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko). I don't expect it to be used on non-terrorists anytime soon, but it's bad precedent.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
:facepalm:
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?
-
:facepalm:
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.
-
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
-
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. :facepalm:
-
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.
-
This was an act of war.
At least we can agree on that =D
-
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?
I wasn't aware of it, nor did anyone ask me. Sorry if I'm a bit late to the game.
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.
I will admit that I don't have much love lost for this guy. That isn't the point. We now have a legal precedent that permits our govt to declare a person a terrorist and then kill him. Yes, in this case, they had supporting evidence, but where are the controls? What prevents the govt from declaring political opponents "terrorists" if the process is classified? The IRS has already been used punitively against people. This is the same govt that gave us the ATF, who NEVER abuses their power.
Imagine if Randy Weaver(1) was declared a terrorist instead?
Chris
(1) No, I don't support him, just using him as an example. Insert your maligned patriot of choice.
-
:facepalm:
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?
Because, by using drones, we're not violating anyone's legal immigration laws....unlike SOME countries....
-
Because, by using drones, we're not violating anyone's legal immigration laws....unlike SOME countries....
???
Not...exactly sure the use of a drone isn't a "technicality." Though the use of them does increase our ability to whack the bad guys and that's a good thing.
-
Has anyone stopped to consider the governments track record with accusations of terrorism? How many people sent to Guantanamo were later found to have been either innocent or to have been far less involved in terror plots than was alleged?
The .gov routinely bungles evidence and refuses to consider facts that contradict it's assertions. Why would we accept its claims about terrorists when wouldnt about much else?
-
I wasn't aware of it, nor did anyone ask me. Sorry if I'm a bit late to the game.
I will admit that I don't have much love lost for this guy. That isn't the point. We now have a legal precedent that permits our govt to declare a person a terrorist and then kill him. Yes, in this case, they had supporting evidence, but where are the controls? What prevents the govt from declaring political opponents "terrorists" if the process is classified? The IRS has already been used punitively against people. This is the same govt that gave us the ATF, who NEVER abuses their power.
Imagine if Randy Weaver(1) was declared a terrorist instead?
Chris
(1) No, I don't support him, just using him as an example. Insert your maligned patriot of choice.
Wasn't that what this thread was about before De Selby went off the deep end? We were all pretty much saying "Yeah, THIS guy probably needed to die, but why is the justification classified? We'd all like to see the controls and justifications for this decision."
Or did I miss someone saying " Yeah, *expletive deleted*ck it, it's the .gov. Let them cap whoever."?
Except De Selby, who thinks we should just go kidnap people, subject them arbitrarily to a legal system and THEN execute them. (Wait, isn't that what happens to reporters in Afghanistan?) everyone wants to see the reasoning behind this killing.
-
Has anyone stopped to consider the governments track record with accusations of terrorism? How many people sent to Guantanamo were later found to have been either innocent or to have been far less involved in terror plots than was alleged?
The .gov routinely bungles evidence and refuses to consider facts that contradict it's assertions. Why would we accept its claims about terrorists when wouldnt about much else?
Your savior, Obama, promised to close Gitmo and come up with a new system to replace the tribunals, etc.
He lied.
Where are your calls for impeachment?
-
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
BHO and affiliated enemy sympathizers put the ixnay on that with all their pissing & moaning about gitmo and the other CIA detention & interrogation centers. They have painted themselves into the position where it is less politically and legally risky to kill hundreds of folks (who deserve it, no doubt) via drone missiles along with collateral folk (who may not). Amoral dumbasses who can't think one step beyond the immediate into the unintended consequences, the lot of them. I can not express teh depth of my contempt for them. They are not fit for polite company.
I just want to know Obama's justification. I want to see if Jimmy Carter would qualify for a drone. :P
Jimmy qualifies as a drone.
:facepalm:
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?
Yep.
Killing the the hell outta them (and collateral folk) with a missile: OK and legal
Kidnapping & interrogating in an undisclosed location: War crime.
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.
Yep. And I have no problem with killing the sorry SOB. There is zero chance he was not making war against America. His own words condemned him many times over. It is the closest thing to absolute existential certainty one can find on Earth.
I do have a problem in the reasoning and legal noodling, however, because:
1. It was un-freaking-necessary. Dude was warring against America and America blew him to Hell. That's the risk you take in war.
2. The legal wrangling and precedent of POTUS "declaring a citizen a terrorist," putting him on a hit list, and then whacking him on those grounds is most definitely a danger to American citizens.
If I were more cynical, I might think that all the pissing and moaning were done just to enshrine such a precedent.
-
agreed, shrouding it in secrecy and being shady about it is precisely what the libs would scream and hollar about if it was bush
-
As much as it hurts me to say, I don't see where DS went deep end on this one....
-
Has anyone stopped to consider the governments track record with accusations of terrorism? How many people sent to Guantanamo were later found to have been either innocent or to have been far less involved in terror plots than was alleged?
The .gov routinely bungles evidence and refuses to consider facts that contradict it's assertions. Why would we accept its claims about terrorists when wouldnt about much else?
Actually there's been "terrorists" released from Gitmo that were thought to be innocent who were released -- to be captured back out on the battlefield again because they weren't "innocent."
-
As much as it hurts me to say, I don't see where DS went deep end on this one....
I'd suggest re-reading DS, then.
"Oh, I have no problem going after those who make war against us. I am just going to make it impossible to accomplish and do my best to destroy you legally when you try. Have fun!"
-
I'd suggest re-reading DS, then.
"Oh, I have no problem going after those who make war against us. I am just going to make it impossible to accomplish and do my best to destroy you legally when you try. Have fun!"
What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people. That is why the colonists insisted on juries; they prevented arbitrary and political violence from being used against the citizenry.
As it stands now, we've basically given Obama the power to kill anyone he wants without proving anything, and to do that anywhere in the world.
You're reading his statements how you want to read them.
He's pretty plainly stating that there is something fundamentally wrong with the government deciding in secret how it differentiates between US Citizens it just hunts down and kills and those who stand trial for crimes.
The "War on Terror" is about as broad of a brush stroke as you can paint with.
-
Actually there's been "terrorists" released from Gitmo that were thought to be innocent who were released -- to be captured back out on the battlefield again because they weren't "innocent."
If you stuck me in Gitmo for five years, I'd probably become a terrorist, too :P
-
If you stuck me in Gitmo for five years, I'd probably become a terrorist, too :P
You're falling into the fallacy that the WoT generates more terrorists. :P
Chris
-
If you stuck me in Gitmo for five years, I'd probably become a terrorist, too :P
I don't think so.
-
I don't think so.
Can I use that as a character reference ? =D
-
Let's see here - most agree there should be some check on the Government's power to kill, and some process that proves people are terrorists before they're up to be killed.
What do you all think it should be in this scenario, if not the criminal trial? The government has a proven record of ignoring contrary facts and accusing political opponents of wrongdoing, so obviously an internal process is not a good idea.
I propose the trial because it's what we have always relied on for this purpose - if anyone has a better idea that would actually work I'd be happy to see it.
Saying "its a war!" doesn't actually change the problem. We can and have won wars while holding trials for suspected unlawful combatants - that's how it has always worked. Fight in uniform and attack soldiers - open to be killed without trial but immune from laws against homicide, and you are home free if you survive the war. Fight out of uniform or attack civilians in secret - you can be convicted of a crime and executed. That process worked just fine for every war we have ever fought and I see no reason why this war should be an exception.
Fitz, in response to your comment about Obama - please reference a post where I've had anything positive to say about his policies or him.
-
So, we should be capturing and trying every terrorist we encounter?
After all, they are fighting out of uniform and operating in secret
-
So, we should be capturing and trying every terrorist we encounter?
After all, they are fighting out of uniform and operating in secret
American Citizens? Damn skippy.
-
American Citizens? Damn skippy.
....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....
Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....or, as a great philisopher once said, "If somebody tries to kill you, you kill them right back.".....
-
....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....
Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....or, as a great philisopher once said, "If somebody tries to kill you, you kill them right back.".....
Was he in the process of trying to kill someone at that time? Was he some sort of armed combatant? Was he shooting it out at the time with our soldiers?
-
....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....
If it's an imminent threat, he's bought and paid for. I don't see evidence of that in this case, unless someone has information that I don't. And don't bother with the "responsible for planning more attacks.." nonsense. We don't cap serial killers on sight as much as we might want to.
Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....
No, actually, it doesn't. Loss of citizenship is a pretty specifically defined process.
It's not about whether or not he had it coming (he certainly did), but about consistently applying the law. He may have been very guilty of high treason, and he deserved to die for that, but a citizen is entitled to due process regardless of the severity of the offense. It should be noted that while treason can result in forefeiture of citizenship, treason still requires due process to prove.
Now, what I want to know is whether or not he actually did do something to forefeit his citizenship. I rather strongly suspect that he did, in which case he's an enemy combatant, and he's fair game. It seems like a rather easy case to make, and I find it curious that nobody has really tried. It's like his citizenship was never in question, and that strikes me as very odd.
-
Again, fitz- how do you know for certain who is a terrorist until the government's claims are tested and independently verified?
-
....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....
Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....or, as a great philisopher once said, "If somebody tries to kill you, you kill them right back.".....
Imagine if the .gov applied this to the survivalist types who claim that the Feds are a front for the un and are arming themselves to fight it....what about the white supremacists who claim Jews are running the US and have declared themselves at war with the government?
Should the government be able to kill those folks because of their hatred of the US? And their sworn intentions to resist the government by force?
-
Again, fitz- how do you know for certain who is a terrorist until the government's claims are tested and independently verified?
If you wish to apply that logic, how do we know Al Qaeda attacked the US?
His terrorist activities are well documented.
It's possible my feelings are colored by my close, personal experiences with islamic extremism, so maybe I'm not being rational.
I just find it impossible to call his death the wrong thing. The classification of the legal theory, absolutely wrong... but i am ALL for the decision to shove a hellfire missile up that guy's rectum
-
In addition, I apologize for my hostile assertions. Some of my posts have not been quite on "the high road."
This is a very personal subject to me. I've seen the carnage that those of his ilk cause, and I have had to deal with, on more than one occasion, the murderous philosophy he spent his adult life spewing
Interesting side note: he was arrested several times in the US for prostitution... funny how someone can ignore their religion one minute and use it to justify and encourage murder the next
-
Again, fitz- how do you know for certain who is a terrorist until the government's claims are tested and independently verified?
When the guy has made videos and tape recordings admitting to and boasting about his activities, I don't need to rely on gov't being run by angels. That is the sort of thing I am willing to take folks' on their word.
This is a piss-poor case in which to make such an argument, what with all the facts beating the argument like a red-headed step child.
You're reading his statements how you want to read them.
He's pretty plainly stating that there is something fundamentally wrong with the government deciding in secret how it differentiates between US Citizens it just hunts down and kills and those who stand trial for crimes.
The "War on Terror" is about as broad of a brush stroke as you can paint with.
Like I wrote, re-read DS. He is not making only that simple point (which I happen to agree with). As with CAIR and others, he is an advocate of lawfare against America in general and our troops in particular.
-
When the guy has made videos and tape recordings admitting to and boasting about his activities
A murderer could do the same thing and still would get a trial.
-
Murderer: isolated dude, give him a trial
This guy: member of an armed force we are AT WAR WITH
We DON'T need permission to kill someone we are AT WAR WITH.
You guys are aware there were americans who left america to go fight for the germans during WW2....
You think we gave them a trial before bombing the *expletive deleted*it out of them?
-
We seem to be at war with about half the world these days.... =|
-
We seem to be at war with about half the world these days.... =|
I'm going to go ahead and revert to the "they started it" argument
Maybe we wouldn't be at war with them if, I dunno, they hadn't massacred thousands of innocent people. In fact, our idiot leadership was PERFECTLY happy to appease and and arm these maniacs for quite some time.
-
We DON'T need permission to kill someone we are AT WAR WITH.
Is it ok to kill someone who is surrendering? After all, we are at war with them.
-
Is it ok to kill someone who is surrendering? After all, we are at war with them.
Yes. It was done in WW2 when the soldiers couldn't realistically be expected to complete their missions and maintain prisoner security at the same time.
-
Yes. It was done in WW2 when the soldiers couldn't realistically be expected to complete their missions and maintain prisoner security at the same time.
A host of war crimes were committed - this is one of them and is recognized as such by the united states and all civilized nations.
The important thing to remember here is that when, who, and how we decide the evidence is overwhelming is an important question. It isn't just for show that we hold trials even when there's a video tape of the crime - having an independent assessment of the evidence is vital even where the purpose is to declare that there's overwhelming proof.
If you don't do that, the government will simply assert that the evidence is overwhelming whenever it wants to kill someone, and then do it. You may not agree next time - it's important in either case that the decision about the evidence is independent.
Note that we did find al qaeda units taking up arms against the us and fought them in battle- I've seen no reasonable objection to that. This killing is a completely different scenario.
-
It was not considered a war crime in WW2 if done under those circumstances, DeSelby. It probably would be considered one now, though.
-
It was not considered a war crime in WW2 if done under those circumstances, DeSelby. It probably would be considered one now, though.
Not the case Tommy, shooting surrendered people was a crime in any circumstances other than after a trial.
-
It's not a "war crime" when you win =)
-
Not the case Tommy, shooting surrendered people was a crime in any circumstances other than after a trial.
See here for an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Order
-
See here for an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Order
How is this an example of legal execution??? The article tells you on it's first page that this practice was held to violate the laws of war at Nuremberg
-
I'm gonna say that introducing this particular jackass to Allah via missile-armed drone is entirely OK with me. If anyone has earned it, I believe that he has. This is due to his stated and proclaimed affiliation with Al Qaeda, and encouraging war (if not direct engagement of war) against the US. I believe his actions fit solidly within the definition of Treason, and as such merit death. Furthermore, he is a self-professed enemy combatant, and as such, unless he is in the act of surrender, is fair game.
HOWEVER the .gov refusing to disclose the reasoning and justification for putting a Hellfire up his fourth point of contact is NOT OK.
-
Not the case Tommy, shooting surrendered people was a crime in any circumstances other than after a trial.
Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe. Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially," but it happened.
In reality, POWS were only rarely taken by patrols and then only when they were specifically tasked to get one, which would usually be an officer of rank, who would have important knowledge.
-
Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe. Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially," but it happened.
In reality, POWS were only rarely taken by patrols and then only when they were specifically tasked to get one, which would usually be an officer of rank, who would have important knowledge.
Not sure how this matters then - you acknowledge it was a crime, and recognized as such.
Because someone did it before isn't a good reason to commit the same crime again.
-
How is this an example of legal execution??? The article tells you on it's first page that this practice was held to violate the laws of war at Nuremberg
Where did I say it was legal? I quoted your post and said "see example" not "counterpoint" or "au contraire, mon frere." You're a lawyer, you're supposed to notice the fine print. :P
Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe. Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially," but it happened.
It happened extremely often in the Pacific, not so frequently in Europe - though Patton once complained about it:
"The Eleventh Armored is very green and took unnecessary losses to no effect. There were also some unfortunate incidents in the shooting of prisoners. I hope we can conceal this."
Concealment was important to prevent German reprisals on Allied POWs.
-
Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe. Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially," but it happened.
In reality, POWS were only rarely taken by patrols and then only when they were specifically tasked to get one, which would usually be an officer of rank, who would have important knowledge.
the word of the day is war crimes
-
Not sure how this matters then - you acknowledge it was a crime, and recognized as such.
Because someone did it before isn't a good reason to commit the same crime again.
Ok, I think the thing everyone (including myself =( ) is missing is that there is no obligation on the part of anyone to accept the surrender of enemy combatant troops.
If surrender has not accepted, then firing on them is OK.
If terms have been made and accepted, then the terms have been accepted and at that point, they may not be shot.
In the incidents I was refering to above surrender was not accepted.
I apologize for not more thoroughly explaining the matter in the above post.
-
Ok, I think the thing everyone (including myself =( ) is missing is that there is no obligation on the part of anyone to accept the surrender of enemy combatant troops.
If surrender has not accepted, then firing on them is OK.
If terms have been made and accepted, then the terms have been accepted and at that point, they may not be shot.
In the incidents I was refering to above surrender was not accepted.
I apologize for not more thoroughly explaining the matter in the above post.
You're saying that, if an enemy combatant approaches a U.S. soldier in the field, hands up and waving a white flag, saying "I surrender," the soldier is allowed to shoot the guy at whim?
If his unit were in the middle of assaulting the objective, and he thought the "surrender" might be a ruse and he didn't have time to sort it out, then yeah, I could see that. But that's about the only way I could see that being legal.
-
I'm saying it was done.
And yeah, I'm sure a lot of times the Germans may have been attempting a ruse.
Also consider that in a moment where a soldier thinks there's no way to survive except surrender, he may do so, only to begin to see ... "possibilities" as time goes on.
Somewhat aside from everything, there was a scene in the 1960 movie "The Longest Day" that provoked a great deal of controversy in its day. Just after much of the American soldiers managed to surmount the cliffs and begin to make progress, a few German soldiers come out of a bunker. One gets to say "Bitte Bitte" in the second or two before the American soldiers gun them down. As the American G.I.s leave, one remarks "I wonder what 'bitte bitte' means?" Well, what the German soldier was trying to say in English would be "please ---." We don't know what he was asking as of course he was so rudely cut off. Maybe it would be "Bitte, bitte, nicht shießen," which would be "please don't shoot." If this incident were true, would the American G.I. be considered guilty of a war crime?
Probably not, IMHO, as he was confronted by an enemy soldier in the heat of battle, obviously didn't understand the question or imploration the enemy soldier was making, and did what was expected of a soldier in a war at the time.
Yet it created a fireball of a controversy because "somehow" he was supposed to have "known" the German was trying to surrender.
There is also the true story of American soldiers at the Battle of the Bulge who were cut off and running out of ammo and tried to surrender to the Germans. One soldier who thought he knew a little German yelled "nicht shieß" (leaving off the last two letters "EN"). Unfortunatly this means, in German, "don't s**t." Apparantly even the Krauts didn't leave their sense of humor at home in WW2, so the krauts all broke out laughing, and accepted the surrender. It didn't do anyone of them any good because this was toward the end of the war.
I suspect things might have played out differently depending upon the scale too. A large scale matter involving officers might involve a great deal more formality than on a squad or platoon level.
But remember, in war, cr@p happens. It's nice to say there are rules of war, and of course there are. It would be nice if war itself was illegal and could be stamped out but that seems too "pie-in-the-sky" to ever happen. And just as it's impossible to preclude wars through the law, it probably will always be as hard to keep everyone playing by the rules -- especially when they interfer with survival.
The Roman Cicero said, "inter arma enim silent legges," meaning, "in war the law falls silent." When following rules makes you dead/defeated, there's an enormous almost insurmountable ambition to violate them for ones' own good, or that of the country you're serving.
That's why it's war, not pinochle.
-
How would following the rules in this situation cause more deaths than following the rules in the war on drugs?
It's without question that drugs have killed more people, and ruined far more lives, than terrorism.
Why isn't everyone jumping up and down for the government to start targeting dealers, to prevent "national suicide"?
Or is a whole generation afflicted by drug use, drug murders, and the family destruction that comes with it less of a threat than some guys with homemade bombs who have struck America twice in 20 years?
-
How would following the rules in this situation cause more deaths than following the rules in the war on drugs?
It's without question that drugs have killed more people, and ruined far more lives, than terrorism.
Why isn't everyone jumping up and down for the government to start targeting dealers, to prevent "national suicide"?
Or is a whole generation afflicted by drug use, drug murders, and the family destruction that comes with it less of a threat than some guys with homemade bombs who have struck America twice in 20 years?
What are you trying to do, come up with reasons to ignore terrorism? I'm no big rah-rah fan of how this country is handling the drug problem, but IMO we ignored AQ and terrorists for twenty years. They attacked the USS Cole, they bombed embassies, they tried to attack the Trade Towers in the early '90s and we basically ignored it ---until they succeeded and 2,973 human beings lost their lives on American soil.
That's more than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor cost.
I suppose you think we should have ignored the Japanese after 12/7/41 as well. :facepalm:
When the *&&%^^ terrorists start "following the rules" I will happily argue we should enact the Marquit de Queensbury's rules in our fight against them.
The last thing we need is a bunch of ******** conflating our ***** "war on drugs" with the war against Jihadi driven terrorists. :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Tommy, the point is one of comparison - you're saying that we need to set aside our liberties to fight terrorism because if we don't, there's no way to win.
I'm pointing out that the drug war has killed far more people than terrorism, and ruined countless more lives, yet no sane person on this board would argue that we need to suspend our right to trial in order to fight drugs.
If terrorism is such a lethal threat, why don't you support doing away with trials and allowing Government assassinations for the drug war, which is far more dangerous to America than terrorism will ever be?
-
De Selby, posing the War on Drugs as the equivalent of the War on Terror (specifically the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) is an intrinsically flawed comparison for a very simple reason: The two are governed by entirely different bodies of law. Whereas we have been pursuing the WoD with civilian law enforcement which are ostensibly constrained and directed by the civilians courts and their laws (because the violation in question is one of civilian law) the WoT on the other hand is a direct foreign threat posed to the nation as a whole and is thus being pursued as an actual war (and not just one in name) with the full deployment of the military, something that is expressly prohibited from being done in the WoD. Advancing the notion that the two to be the same, or indeed any civilian enforcement scenario to be the equivalent of the military waging war against a national enemy, is disingenuous to the extreme.
Now, drawing on my own personal experience dealing with this sort of situation I can say this charlie-foxtrot should never have come into being. There was absolutely no need for a special super-secret legal reasoning for why this guy should be killed as a member of an enemy force, and if I were any of you I would be highly suspect as to why the current administration would ever feel the need for such. With that said, this should have been handled quite simply thus:
Final vetting note for target packet-
All credible intelligence sources (see attached target packet) indicate that Anwar al-Awlaki has openly engaged in warfare against the United States and her allies inside and out of declared war zones. His status under the Geneva Convention is that of Unlawful Combatant. His status and position in the enemy's hierarchy qualifies him as a High Value Target. It is recommended that Anwar al-Awlaki be killed or captured if possible.
When you are engaged in an actual shooting war (and not a cross-border policing) civilian law does not come into play. You do not go to the local circuit court and get a warrant for an enemy soldier's arrest. You do not throw away hundreds of your soldiers trying to capture each and every enemy fighter in order to fly them half way around the world and so they can have a civilian trial. And you most certainly don't obfuscate the exigencies of a battlefield with murky legal reasoning as to why you are allowed to fire a missile at the enemy. You do however gather intelligence on their activities, their whereabouts, their plans, and then you try to kill them, as quickly and efficiently as your means allow so that you lose a few friendlies as possible, and I make no apologies for this. The fair fight is the one I win and everyone on my side comes back alive and to hell with the enemy force. When the dust settles if you've manage to take some of them alive, either through luck or obvious surrender, then you process them as Prisoners of War with all the provisions allotted for in the various treaties and agreements pertaining to such. That they managed to survive the battlefield does not qualify them for all the privileges, immunities and rights granted a civilian in the U.S. legal system. Remember, they are no longer classified as civilians. They are illegal combatants. And they get to enjoy all the wonders such a status under the laws of war bestow upon them.
-
kgb, there is one simple problem - the laws of war give people who are not in uniform, and not actually (as in, at the moment) attacking while bearing arms the right to a criminal trial to determine if they are in fact unlawful combatants, and if they are in fact liable for criminal penalties.
Under our traditional laws of war, Awlaki would have to have been found guilty of engaging in terrorism before the strike could be legally undertaken. Now, if you have a trial (military or otherwise) and prove to an independent fact finder that Awlaki did engage in combat on behalf of Al Qaeda, this would be a whole different story.
That's the legal reality - more troubling is the policy justification. If it's all about "avoiding national suicide" and "extreme threats", why would we apply the laws of war (which are less restrictive) to terrorism when we haven't to international drug trafficking, which is much more threatening and dangerous?
-
Fine. Show me the law from one of the conventions of war that states I must wait for a court decide the status of an unlawful combatant that has not yet been captured before I am allowed to take action against them.
-
kgb, there is one simple problem - the laws of war give people who are not in uniform, and not actually (as in, at the moment) attacking while bearing arms the right to a criminal trial to determine if they are in fact unlawful combatants, and if they are in fact liable for criminal penalties.
By that retarded logic, ANY terrorist asswipe who is not actually shooting, should have a trial.
Which makes every single bombing mission we've undertaken EVER in the war on terror, illegal.
:facepalm:
-
If it's all about "avoiding national suicide" and "extreme threats", why would we apply the laws of war (which are less restrictive) to terrorism when we haven't to international drug trafficking, which is much more threatening and dangerous?
Go back and actually read my first paragraph this time. It was answered there.
-
Fine. Show me the law from one of the conventions of war that states I must wait for a court decide the status of an unlawful combatant that has not yet been captured before I am allowed to take action against them.
Sure. That would be found in Art 3 of the Fourth Geneva convention http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600006?OpenDocument (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600006?OpenDocument):
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
That's a law that says you can't execute people unless they're actually fighting on the battlefield. And there's an obvious reason for it. What if the Government simply asserts, but has no real proof, that their target was fighting? (d) gives you the right to contest the Government's claims, which, as we all know from dealing with Government, frequently turn out to be false.
Then there's also Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which reads (this following an explanation of how militias qualify for POW status under certain circumstances)http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument):
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
So that's what happens when you catch these people, as you're obligated to do when they lay down their arms or for whatever reason are not actively engaged in hostilities.
Your file note idea does not come close to meeting the legal tests for determining that someone a) committed crimes sufficient to warrant the death penalty nor b) that their status was illegal even if they were caught fighting US troops.
-
Go back and actually read my first paragraph this time. It was answered there.
No, it was not - you asserted that terrorism is governed by the laws of war. That is not a legal reality; there's no law that says you must treat terrorists as you would foreign armies. In fact, prior to 2001, the USA actually did apply civilian law to terrorists, including Al Qaeda terrorists.
Applying "the laws of war" (I put that in quotes because the Government didn't actually apply the laws of war - it argued that no laws of any kind restrain its power to deal with terrorists) was a conscious policy decision. That makes the question more than reasonable as to why drugs can only be fought with limited Government power, but terrorism opens up any course of action the Government feels like taking.
-
By that retarded logic, ANY terrorist asswipe who is not actually shooting, should have a trial.
Which makes every single bombing mission we've undertaken EVER in the war on terror, illegal.
:facepalm:
No, it doesn't - you are reading what you want to read there.
-
No, i'm not. you emphasized ACTIVELY engaged in hostilities
You went out of your way to emphasize this:
I quote:
and not actually (as in, at the moment) attacking
So, every single time we've bombed terrorists as they sleep, we have committed a crime.
That's what you're saying
-
No, i'm not. you emphasized ACTIVELY engaged in hostilities
You went out of your way to emphasize this:
I quote:
So, every single time we've bombed terrorists as they sleep, we have committed a crime.
That's what you're saying
No, it is not - an army marching towards an objective is not shooting, but it's clearly actively engaged in combat. That's why it's important to define the battlefield (we had that in Iraq and Afghanistan) and to limit strikes to the armed camps.
Picking some guy in a random city anywhere in the world and asserting that he's an "illegal combatant" is qualitatively different and so obviously contrary to the laws post above that it can't be compared. Yet this is exactly the power the Government asserted to kill Awlaki.
-
So, the enemy avoids using armed camps. They hide in the shadows and in tiny safehouses.
Clarify your position: no more backpedaling. Are those strikes on safehouses illegal?
You are asserting that our strikes are illegal
-
So, the enemy avoids using armed camps. They hide in the shadows and in tiny safehouses.
Clarify your position: no more backpedaling. Are those strikes on safehouses illegal?
You are asserting that our strikes are illegal
Yeah, nothing I'm saying is inconsistent here. You need to take a deep breath and read the thread before you read what follows.
The key consideration is where those safe houses are located. If your enemies flee the country where the war is and hide out in other countries, obviously it's illegal to just bomb them. No one seriously claimed at the time, nor would it have been taken seriously in any office or Court in America, that Nazis who escaped to the US and hid out (to avoid prosecution) could legally have been shot on sight by the US Government.
Nazis hiding in a bunker in Germany though? Whole different kettle of fish, and the distinction isn't very tough to understand.
Had Awlaki been hiding in a Taliban bunker in Afghanistan alongside a bunch of Al Qaeda fighters, he'd be taking his chances. Flee that situation to Germany and hide under an assumed identity? Sorry, he's now a former combatant, on the run from war crimes prosecution.
There are important reasons for that distinction - without it, the Government can literally claim the right to kill anyone anywhere simply by alleging a connection some war, somewhere (any war will do.) And that has been a power no Government in America ever claimed prior to the 2001.
People like Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic make arguments similar to the one you are making in international courts, but it's unlikely any nation will accept them. And again, the reason is obvious - any other system gives the Government carte blanche to kill people without any limit.
-
You are backpedaling. Your first assertion was that actively engaged in shooting was the criteria. Then you said if they're resting but on the battlefield they're still "in active combat"...
Now suddenly it's location based
But that's fine. I expect inconsistency from you.
Let me ask you this: if he's in a safehouse full of al-qaeda members in Afghanistan, or a safehouse full of al-qaeda in Syria, Libya, or friggin Antarctica: What is the goddamn difference?
I bet if you were a military officer you'd be the guy opening a 15-6 on troops for doing their jobs and killing the enemy, all on a technicality.
-
Fitz, no amount of typing will settle this if you refuse to see anything other than what you want to see - your questions are clearly addressed above.
If I were a military officer I'd have serious doubts about fighting for a President who claims he has the right to kill me and my whole family, whether they're in New York or Antarctica or anywhere else, without giving me a chance to deny his supposed reasons for doing it.
-
Interesting.
You don't think that a military officer who fought for the enemy would be killed on sight? I think he would. In fact, I'd pull the trigger. Traitors are a special breed of ahole.
You didn't address my questions. you continually revised your positions.
If you're going to assert ridiculous things, at least have the backbone to stand by them. Your backpedaling is cowardly.
I'm done. Does this forum have an ignore list?
-
I was just doing some thinking:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I would argue that this guy's statements constitute a confession. Who cares if it's in a court or not. I certainly don't. The location where someone reveals themself to be a murderous scumbag doesn't matter to me.
-
....
You've made an assumption that the phrase "actively engaged in hostilities" equates solely to shooting a gun (and then later changed your mind as your claimed facts no longer suited your current argument). You have failed to take into account that "hostilities" covers a much wider range of activities, such as training, planning, arming, just being a member of one of the belligerent groups that hasn't been captured and interned yet, etc. By your definition I was in no way "actively engaged in hostilities" while I was directing UAV's from the S2 shop. After all, I wasn't out there with my M16A2 shooting at the Taliban. And yet I still managed to kill 16 Taliban from my comfy sit and swivel. Certainly not "actively engaged in hostilities" there, not at all. In short, article four is neither here nor there for a major leader of a belligerent group who is in transit between safe-houses/facilities where they are actively engaging in hostilities by planning, preparing and launching attacks from said facilities.
As for article 5, it states only that if there is any doubt concerning captured persons they shall be regarded as prisoners of war until their repatriation (which is at the end of the war in case you were curious), and as POW's they are to be protected by the Geneva conventions. Note it doesn't say the protections of the host countries civilian legal system.
By the by, since Anwar al-Awlaki was killed while in transit in his automobile I see a most distinct parallel to another famous figure who was also killed while in transit. At this point I would ask a rhetorical question about whether you would determine that case to be an illegal execution, but I'll save you the trouble. His name was Admiral Yamamoto. He was one of Imperial Japan's best military leaders during World War 2. We found out when he was going to be vulnerable and we killed him. This significantly aided our victory in the Pacific. Anwar al-Awlaki was at the least a vociferous, if not key, leader of the enemy we now fight. We found out when he would be vulnerable and he is also now dead. Time will tell how significantly this will help us in our current war.
No, it was not - you asserted that terrorism is governed by the laws of war. That is not a legal reality; there's no law that says you must treat terrorists as you would foreign armies. In fact, prior to 2001, the USA actually did apply civilian law to terrorists, including Al Qaeda terrorists.
Applying "the laws of war" (I put that in quotes because the Government didn't actually apply the laws of war - it argued that no laws of any kind restrain its power to deal with terrorists) was a conscious policy decision. That makes the question more than reasonable as to why drugs can only be fought with limited Government power, but terrorism opens up any course of action the Government feels like taking.
Reading comprehension failure. I did not assert terrorism is governed by the laws of war. I asserted that an actual *expletive deleted*ing war being executed by the actual military is governed by the laws of war. Did I use small enough words that time?
-
I'm continuing to respond politely to posts that contain outright personal insults for one reason - this is an interesting and important topic and I think it's worth exploring. So here we go kgbsquirrel
Certainly not "actively engaged in hostilities" there, not at all. In short, article four is neither here nor there for a major leader of a belligerent group who is in transit between safe-houses/facilities where they are actively engaging in hostilities by planning, preparing and launching attacks from said facilities.
You seem to be arguing that under my definition while piloting a war machine you're not "actively engaged in hostilities." I'm not sure of any Court in the world where that argument would work - UAV pilots are pretty much the definition of it. Imagine if I were arguing this about Awlaki had he been shot while sitting behind the controls of a drone-bomb towards new york. You wouldn't need a classified legal opinion, nor any disputes about what the "war on terror" covers to do that - the basic law of self defence would apply.
What I'm saying is that Awlaki's killing was not the killing of someone at the controls of a UAV.
Your comparison to Yamamoto fails in several crucial respects - Yamamoto would have been immune from prosecution for many thousands of killings of US soldiers had he survived the aerial combat and been captured, or surrendered, or in any other way landed in US hands. Yamamoto had the right to go on living once he was out of the fight. The Government affords no such immunities to terrorists, nor does it recognise any distinction between their capacity as belligerents and their peacetime status (something Yamamoto had.)
Then there's also the fact that Yamamoto was flying in a war zone, in a military plane, during a war between two powers with defined limits. If Yamamoto had quit the Japanese army and fled in secret to New York, shooting him would have been considered a crime. Now if he were caught in New York, the Government might have alleged he was an infiltrator, still fighting for Japan, or any number of things - but none of those allegations would have been sufficient to justify shooting him in those circumstances.
I did not assert terrorism is governed by the laws of war. I asserted that an actual *expletive deleted*ing war being executed by the actual military is governed by the laws of war. Did I use small enough words that time?
You said the "War on Terror" is being prosecuted as an actual war. And my point was that prosecuting it as such was a conscious decision by the Government. The Government dealt with the same actors, and the same kinds of terror attacks, under civilian law before 2001. It had a choice after 2001 and it chose to switch course. There's no good reason why we shouldn't question its choices.
Edited to add double clarity (and hopefully to thereby focus on the content without personal attacks being drawn in)
-
Your comparisons to yamamoto aren't valid on several levels. This guy didn't "quit" al qaeda, he went into hiding. Still an active participant in the organization. The "military plane" argument doesn't hold water, because al-qaeda isn't a military. Their trucks aren't military, yet we destroy them. Their personnel aren't military, yet they are combatants.
Also, I would like to know how YOU would conduct operations against al-qaeda effectively without going to war. If you have a workable plan, I'd like to hear it.
Also: I'm not seeing any unwarranted personal attacks. Please point them out
-
You seem to be arguing that while piloting a war machine you're not "actively engaged in hostilities." I'm not sure of any Court in the world where that argument would work - UAV pilots are pretty much the definition of it. Imagine if I were arguing this about Awlaki had he been shot while sitting behind the controls of a drone-bomb towards new york. You wouldn't need a classified legal opinion, nor any disputes about what the "war on terror" covers to do that - the basic law of self defence would apply.
Your statement shows that you are willing to make assumptions with a total ignorance of how things work. The drones for instance. The actual pilot was back in the United States whereas I had a video feed from it, and a laptop with mIRC and a secure connection. I did nothing more than type instructions into a chat window telling the person sitting next to the actual pilot of where I wanted them to fly, look, and on the very rare occasion, shoot. Wow that sounds almost like a certain dead guy who used to tell his fighters where to drive to, reconnoiter and attack using cellphones.
Your comparison to Yamamoto fails in several crucial respects - Yamamoto would have been immune from prosecution for many thousands of killings of US soldiers had he survived the aerial combat and been captured, or surrendered, or in any other way landed in US hands. Yamamoto had the right to go on living once he was out of the fight. The Government affords no such immunities to terrorists, nor does it recognise any distinction between their capacity as belligerents and their peacetime status (something Yamamoto had.)
Again with the assumption. In this case assuming Yamamoto would not have found him self in the exact same tribunal that the other surviving top-most leaders of the Imperial Japanese Military found themselves in. Something tells me he would have been sitting right next to Tojo, but that's just an educated guess on my part based on other actual events that transpired.
Then there's also the fact that Yamamoto was flying in a war zone, in a military plane, during a war between two powers with defined limits. If Yamamoto had quit the Japanese army and fled in secret to New York, shooting him would have been considered a crime. Now if he were caught in New York, the Government might have alleged he was an infiltrator, still fighting for Japan, or any number of things - but none of those allegations would have been sufficient to justify shooting him in those circumstances.
Fitz already covered this, but I'd state that Yemen, where the attack took place, is actually well within the "war zone" considering a number of enemy training camps and other facilities have been located there, same as the North Vietnamese Army soldiers who were traveling through or stationed in Laos on the Ho Chi Minh trail. They didn't cease being enemy combatants (or unlawful combatants in the Taliban and Al Qaeda's case) just because they moved into another country. The only question is do we have the political where-withal to pursue them into those other countries. During Vietnam, we didn't. Today, we do (sometimes, though as of late, the Pakistani border has become less and less of a safety line).
You said the "War on Terror" is being prosecuted as an actual war. And my point was that prosecuting it as such was a conscious decision by the Government. The Government dealt with the same actors, and the same kinds of terror attacks, under civilian law before 2001. It had a choice after 2001 and it chose to switch course. There's no good reason why we shouldn't question its choices.
Good, question it's choices, put that 1A to use. But asserting that people like myself are murderers (arbitrary decisions, no due process, illegal executions, oh my!) because we are not applying civilian law in a military situation and then trying to justify it with flawed comparisons is erroneous to say the least and as I'm sure you've gathered, is not received well.
-
It's ok. Stand by for further backpedaling and revisions of his arguments
-
It's ok. Stand by for further backpedaling and revisions of his arguments
Heh, what I'm really waiting for is to be called a poser who didn't actually vet targets or direct Shadows/Predators. [popcorn]
-
Of course, by pointing out his backpedaling, I am clearly engaging in a "personal attack"
-
DS:
"Hostilities" is more than just marching & shooting. Planning is just as hostile. By your logic, the Austrian corporal was a non-combatant during WW2.
Fitz & KGBS:
It makes sense if DS's purpose is to wage lawfare against America.
Don't doubt for a moment that he'd try to implement the most sweeping of his assertions against our troops, were he in a position to do so. Yet another reason to never, ever cooperate with the ICC and to consider it an act of war if someone got their hands on one of our troops and tried them before it.
-
Tommy, the point is one of comparison - you're saying that we need to set aside our liberties to fight terrorism because if we don't, there's no way to win.
I'm pointing out that the drug war has killed far more people than terrorism, and ruined countless more lives, yet no sane person on this board would argue that we need to suspend our right to trial in order to fight drugs.
If terrorism is such a lethal threat, why don't you support doing away with trials and allowing Government assassinations for the drug war, which is far more dangerous to America than terrorism will ever be?
:facepalm: I don't know why I bother........
No, I did NOT say "we need to set aside our liberties to fight terrorism because if we don't, there's no way to win."
The drug problem has been a direct problem far longer than terrorism and has infiltrated our society far more thoroughly than terrorism. It's a pretty bad threat....go look at what crack cocaine does to people.
We've only been warring with the Jihadis since 9/11/01. Terrorism became a "pretty lethal threat" on September 11th, 2001. I am not willing to sit back and allow the Jihadis to take as many lives as the ill-fought "war on drugs" before I agree we ought start killing the bastages.
The president has many legal advisors around him and I am fairly certain the authority for whacking him was pretty well vetted, and as well the U.S. military has a whole bunch of JAG lawyers around vetting their actions, so I am fairly certain that the legality of every flip of the switch was likely properly vetted before Al Awlaki was sent to his maker.
The idea that we ought to "set aside" our rights to me is rather a non sequitor. I never said we ought to though I do think our rights have been under attack since long before 9/11. I don't consider offing Awlaki to be a violation of my rights, your rights, or anyone else's rights.
I also tend to wonder just where everyone was who is complaining about our loss of rights under the "war against Jihadi terrorists" back when Clinton was signing on to Echelon, or Nixon was compiling an enemies list, or the BATF was shooting Randy Weaver's wife & son, or frying up the Branch Davidians.
A little research will show that our rights have hardly ever been completly safe from attack.
But please don't try to convince me that radical Jihadis do not pose a threat to America, because I think it's pretty undeniable since they manage to commandeer our own aircraft on 9/11/01 and murder 2,973 innocent human beings.
I can very largely avoid probems with illegal drugs by not seeking them out and not using them.
I can't so easily decide to avoid terrorist attacks .... I have no idea when where or how they will atack us again, or if the FBI will be able to interdict the attack or not.
-
Terrorism is not a threat at all!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050971/Three-Muslim-men-arrested-Texas-pictures-courthouses-van.html
;/
-
Fine. Show me the law from one of the conventions of war that states I must wait for a court decide the status of an unlawful combatant that has not yet been captured before I am allowed to take action against them.
can someone show me even a pic of this guy with a gun?
-
I think this thread has ended up proving bin laden victorious - he managed to get us to a condition where our president asserts the right to kill us anywhere in the world without trial, and this power is angrily defended by many. It's as bad as anything bin laden could have delivered had he invaded on camelback.
I'll be watching from afar how this plays out - a bankrupt government which can kill anyone it wants by simply asserting "terror" is going to make for some interesting history.
I'm predicting that these powers absolutely will be applied to other crimes, including drug use, once the government gets desperate enough.
And their arguments will be just like kgb, roo, and fitz's - "of course its a threat! If we don't do this we will ALL DIE" "theyre obviously guilty, just look at what we told you they did"!
And most importantly, "what's the difference if we killed him in NYC or colombia? We need to kill drug enablers anywhere. We need to treat this just like the war on terror if we are going to survive!"
-
I think this thread has ended up proving bin laden victorious - he managed to get us to a condition where our president asserts the right to kill us anywhere in the world without trial, and this power is angrily defended by many. It's as bad as anything bin laden could have delivered had he invaded on camelback.
I'll be watching from afar how this plays out - a bankrupt government which can kill anyone it wants by simply asserting "terror" is going to make for some interesting history.
I'm predicting that these powers absolutely will be applied to other crimes, including drug use, once the government gets desperate enough.
And their arguments will be just like kgb, roo, and fitz's - "of course its a threat! If we don't do this we will ALL DIE" "theyre obviously guilty, just look at what we told you they did"!
And most importantly, "what's the difference if we killed him in NYC or colombia? We need to kill drug enablers anywhere. We need to treat this just like the war on terror if we are going to survive!"
The president has asserted his right to kill members of an organization we are at war with, anywhere in the world, without trial.
Big difference.
Also: i'm a big boy. I am not operating on "their word" that he's a bad dude. I assure you there is evidence at the secret level and above that many, many military members are privy to.
Also, the continued comparisons to the war on some drugs are retarded. The drug cartel problems wouldn't be as much of a problem if they were legal.
Legalizing terrorism and bombings, on the other hand, makes no sense.
Your logic is failing and flawed, and now you're resorting to the last refuge of someone with no logical basis: red herrings.
-
Wow. I didn't know that end of the pool went that deep. That's... very special. Since nothing you've just said has any basis in reality, and you've continually ignored very germane facts that counter, well, pretty much everything you've said, I'm not going to bother with a protracted thought-out counter to... that post, and I will say this quite simply and as my final statement in this thread:
I have actually vetted targets for our forces to try to kill or capture and on occasion killed them myself, you have not. You do not know what is involved, nothing you have said is correct. Good day, citizen.
-
You two are focusing on the wrong question.
The question is not "are fitz and KGB good guys who would use their secret knowledge carefully?"
The question is "how badly can the government abuse the power to kill people based on secret evidence, and what checks are in place to prevent abuse?"
The government is frequently wrong in its assertions about these things. Unless they are tested, there's no way to ensure that a fair decision was reached. Secret vetting is not going to serve that purpose, no matter how righteous one or two people who do it are.
-
You two are focusing on the wrong question.
The question is not "are fitz and KGB good guys who would use their secret knowledge carefully?"
The question is "how badly can the government abuse the power to kill people based on secret evidence, and what checks are in place to prevent abuse?"
The government is frequently wrong in its assertions about these things. Unless they are tested, there's no way to ensure that a fair decision was reached. Secret vetting is not going to serve that purpose, no matter how righteous one or two people who do it are.
The only questionable part of this story is the classification of the legal theory.
Secret vetting of targets, on the other hand, is both necessary and has been common for a long time. We cannot place information in the public domain that could compromise our operations.
If we don't trust leaders with secret data, we shouldn't elect them. There are plenty of reasons to dislike obama and the government. Keeping operations secret is not one of them.
You also have done little to address any of the questions or hypotheticals I posed to you. You are not interested in debate, you are interested in a self righteous condemnation of the death of a murderous bastard.
-
can someone show me even a pic of this guy with a gun?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicnews.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2FAnwar-Awlaki-00-AN-ND-200711.jpg&hash=b247cbc3bb9d170437c5468ec6558ce37cd968b7)
Uh...yes (http://tinyurl.com/3lr6qza)
ETA: No, Seriously. This board has once again allowed DS to get all wrapped up in ....something. This dude was a terrorist. He was an enemy combatant, and was at the time of his death planning logistics and strikes for our enemies. He frakking bragged about it for crying out loud. The ONLY shady thing about his killing at all is why .gov feels the need to classify the justification. Don't let the aussie lawyer obfuscate the fact that this particular US citizen needed to die posthaste.
-
The killing of this particular individual isn't what is being attacked. It's the Orwellian Big Brother attitude that is quite disturbing. Whether "special" people just knew he was a bad guy doesn't matter. The trouble is that there are apparently no safeguards left to protect US Citizens against loss of life by Government hand. No burden of proof, no accountability. Screw ups and foul play can from now on just be fixed with "classified". How that protects me and my fellow citizens is beyond me.
I have actually vetted targets for our forces to try to kill or capture and on occasion killed them myself, you have not. You do not know what is involved, nothing you have said is correct. Good day, citizen.
Sounds like a pretty good Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth" spin off.
Sadly, that attitude doesn't lead to a society in which individual rights are preserved.
I am not operating on "their word" that he's a bad dude. I assure you there is evidence at the secret level and above that many, many military members are privy to.
Maybe YOU are not "operating on their word", but asking that the rest of us do is asking too much. We aren't children. When this "evidence at the secret level" leads to the planned, targeted killing of a US national, it's very much in our best interest to have it open for independent review and serious questioning.
-
Blakenzy, that is exactly the point - scroll through this thread and you'll find no assertion that it's wrong to kill terrorists in the absolute - the issue is in having a process that protects you and me from arbitrary killing.
Secret evidence that satisfies only certain special people is begging for abuse; to believe the government wouldn't use such a power improperly is pure naiveity.
-
Blakenzy, that is exactly the point - scroll through this thread and you'll find no assertion that it's wrong to kill terrorists in the absolute - the issue is in having a process that protects you and me from arbitrary killing.
Secret evidence that satisfies only certain special people is begging for abuse; to believe the government wouldn't use such a power improperly is pure naiveity.
The only issue of merit has nothing to do with secret evidence. The evidence was willfully disseminated by the deceased and unquestioned by reasonable folk. The issue is the secret justification. Which really is no secret: he made war on us, we made war on him. The End.
BHO and his lawyerly types feel the need to square the circle of BHO's pre-POTUS rhetoric and his actions as POTUS. That may convince a few pseudo-sophisticated rubes, but it has nothing to do with legality or war and everything to do with a face-saving gesture.
Sounds like a pretty good Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth" spin off.
Only to the ignorant. DS, in the pertinent post(s), also exhibits profound ignorance of the process and ROE. That is giving DS the benefit of the doubt. If he is not as ignorant as his posts paint him, he moves from ignorant to mendacious.
-
The ROE is so damn restrictive, the burden of proof is high. Hell, soldiers get in trouble for shooting people WHILE planting IEDs, because they don't have an AK on them or something. I've seen it happen! :facepalm:
I guarantee there is a ton of supporting info that's classified.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story.html
y Craig Whitlock, Published: October 22
One week after a U.S. military airstrike killed a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen, no one in the Obama administration, Pentagon or Congress has taken responsibility for his death, or even publicly acknowledged that it happened.
The absence of official accountability for the demise of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a Denver native and the son of an al-Qaeda member, deepens the legal and ethical murkiness of the Obama administration’s campaign to kill alleged enemies of the state outside of traditional war zones.
Unlike the secretive U.S. airstrikes that have killed hundreds of foreigners in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, this case involved an American teenager. He was killed by the U.S. military in a country with which Washington is not at war.
-
I'm sure someone from the Government will assure us that there was a good reason it had to be that way, but that we're not cleared to find out what it is.
"Just trust us - we only kill people for good reasons. But we're not going to tell you what those reasons are."
How could that possibly be abused by the .gov?
-
I'm sure someone from the Government will assure us that there was a good reason it had to be that way, but that we're not cleared to find out what it is.
"Just trust us - we only kill people for good reasons. But we're not going to tell you what those reasons are."
How could that possibly be abused by the .gov?
Someone please check Hades for icicles. I find my self in agreeance with DeSelby.
The .gov should be able to take down people who make war against our country. But when those people are US citizens, it should be a process open to scrutiny.
-
Someone please check Hades for icicles. I find my self in agreeance with DeSelby.
The .gov should be able to take down people who make war against our country. But when those people are US citizens, it should be a process open to scrutiny.
Agreed, we ought to know why American citizens making war against America need whacking. (Pretty easy when the dude in question boasts of it on video.)
But DS's original position was that to kill some citizen making war against America, who had admitted to it for all to see, was illegal. That planning, aiding, and inciting war was somehow not making war. In fact, his position is/was more restrictive than that.
-
yemen tried the sob in absentia and we couldn't? yemen?!
-
yemen tried the sob in absentia and we couldn't? yemen?!
Do we really want to strive to model the Yemeni version of justice and due process? ???
-
Do we really want to strive to model the Yemeni version of justice and due process? ???
That's the point - they tried him and we supposedly couldnt. We shouldn't be killing people with less process, and fewer limits on Government, than Yemen.
Roo_ster, what mechanism do you think should be applied to make the Government test its claims about terrorists? How do you think that mechanism would prevent abuse of power, and in what way would it be limited in scope?
I'm all ears. I mentioned the criminal trial because that's what we have traditionally used to make the Government prove its claims (which, again, frequently turn out to be wrong.)
Internal process trends towards the echo chamber effect, like you have on this thread with KGB and Fitz, where everyone involved agrees on the facts and then spends their time justifying each other's claims. There is a very real risk in that environment of unfalsifiable hypotheses of guilt.
Internal inquiries are prone to the people involved deeming themselves experts, with the result that when outsiders question their conclusions, they tend to write them off as due to a lack of knowledge. The obvious problem is that, when 12 random people can't be convinced of a fact, it's more than likely that the facts aren't actually there. This is why we have trials, so the police echo chamber is forced to become something that outside, independent people would agree is the truth.
It seems to me the risk is every bit the same, if not worse, for terrorism accusations. The Government's rate with Gitmo detainees was atrocious, as the majority have been found not to have had anything to do with terrorism. That's a powerful reason to doubt any Government claims about how sure it is that someone is a terrorist.
-
Do we really want to strive to model the Yemeni version of justice and due process? ???
in this instance we came in behind yemen i like to hope we can do better than that
-
Wow, I'm glad I haven't read this entire thread. This subject is being stretched out to ridiculous lengths.