- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 24,861
- Reaction score
- 10,591
- Location
- daily dukkha
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribunePakistan has refused US military action on its soil, and the domestic security forces have been unable to go after him thus far. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House
Two US officials described the man as an al Qaeda facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against US citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.
lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against US persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." The target must also pose 'a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons' – the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune
my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"
Where the danger is not clear and present, you would certainly not want to allow the Executive to kill citizens. No matter what.
How clear and how present the danger must be, is something that does need discussing.
a good idea. it would take a legal action to do this, then it allows at least some oversight; knowing he then could be easily targeted once the legal remedy was in place.What I would like to see is a process whereby the people who are in league with al Qaeda are stripped of their citizenship.
So much is made of his notion "U.S. citizen" without any thought as to what citizenship entails. This thing is obviously not a citizen in any possible way other than technically so. It's very purpose is to act AGAINST citizens.
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune
my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"
...for (on this particular subject, if you disagree with me) I AM right and you ARE wrong.
Full stop.
this was a crappy thread (poll) a lot to this issue -i'm going to post in Gen'l Politics, as it's in a couple of different areas of interest ( law/war/politics/national security)
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune
my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune
my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"
What is to stop the POTUS from killing anyone he wants...using the above criteria as justification?
I'm fine with exigent circumstances.There's nothing in the Constitution that says an American citizen absolutely can't become a military target.
Truth be told, the notion is awkward and doesn't make sense, like having an absolute right to free speech no matter how much it imposes on privacy, property, or public safety.
Fair enough, but what's to stop al-Qaeda from filling out every cell in their network with a soldier who happens to be a U.S. citizen, as a protective shield against assault?
If killing an enemy combatant who happens to be a U.S. citizen is execution, then most of the countries in the Middle East have a bone to pick with us over extra-judicially killing their citizens.
In the War on Terror, being a terrorist supersedes most of your rights as a citizen. The only way to get them back is to lay down your arms and surrender.
This is crap.
Who decides what is 'a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons''?
Some secret committee? The POTUS? Does the public ever see this 'proof'?
What is to stop the POTUS from killing anyone he wants...using the above criteria as justification?
This is a pathetic misuse of power.
Plus, bombing another country is a technical 'act of war'
Anyone that does not find this deeply concerning is staggeringly naive and/or ignorant.
And I will not waste my time debating with those who disagree, because there is no need...
...for (on this particular subject, if you disagree with me) I AM right and you ARE wrong.
Full stop.
Who cares? They're Pakistani. These people couldn't find Osama bin Laden when he was living in a giant military complex in the middle of a city and nobody in the government thought it was the least bit suspicious. I'm sure the citizens can't tell the difference between drone bombs and rain.The US drone program begun by Bush and placed on steroids by Obama is and has been wretched. The US will pay for these crimes against humanity. Killing innocent people, in the name of protecting innocent people:doh
(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.
Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune
my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"
When it comes to foreign policy, the US is hugely hypocritical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?