- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
if someone is involved with the enemy of my nation - regardless of their place of birth - they have become an enemy target
whether by drone or other military weapon
surprised so many of the reich wing are opposed to our military's eradicating enemy forces
What part of my post are you responding to?
EDIT: And yes, in the memo it states that it doesn't just have to be the President, but can also be a high-ranking intel official.
Well there you go. In your view, it is more likely our current government consciously desires to kill teenagers (or at least doesn't care about killing teenagers) than it is that they didn't have 100% perfect knowledge of what was going on in a foreign country at one specific moment. I think that sums up our current disagreement fairly well. I for one have seen zero evidence whatsoever that would lead me to such a pessimistic assumption.Its easy to make the claim he wasnt the target to cover their asses or to say they didnt know he was there at that time, they certainly knew the supposed target WAS there at that specific time. So either they didnt care who they killed, which is callous and careless or they did know and just didnt care.
All those things apply to criminal prosecutions. Are you suggesting that we must criminally prosecute all Americans before we deprive them of life or liberty? Surely if an american criminal is pointing a gun at a policeman, you would not say that the person must be criminally prosecuted and given a chance to address his accusers before the policeman is able to shoot him. So where do we draw the line? What about when the American is in a nuclear-armed foreign country hiding in cave somewhere plotting attacks, and we only get intelligence about his exact whereabouts once or twice a year? Do we have to risk the lives of soldiers by ordering them to physically invade said country and capture the guy alive, to bring him to trial? I think you said before you are in favor of drones, so I'm just wondering where exactly you draw the line?Due process doesnt include trial? Not so says the Constitution.
American citizens are GUARANTEED to be informed of the charges against them, American citizens are GUARANTEED the right to address their accusers, American citizens are GUARANTEED a trial by a jury of their peers, American citizens are GUARANTEED the right to appeal the decision of the courts...none of that can take place when the government arbitrarily decides to kill you upon their say so alone.
More likely, it saves the life of a terrorist and ends the lives of several terrorist victims.To use the words of President Obama himself....if it saves just one life dont we have the obligation to act?
Oh relax, nobody is justifying anything. I'm just saying Obama doesn't deserve to be raked over the coals for asking for a memo on when drone strikes would be constitutionally legal, or for trying to take out terrorists (even American ones) before they kill innocent people. Give me a break.You can sit there and rightly justify the killings of Americans without any trial just on the say so of the Administration?
You can sit there and rightly justify violating someones Constitutional rights just on the say so of the Administration?
You can sit there and justify our government killing people on perceived assumptions?
Thankfully, we have never been forced to wait until a terrorist attack (or any crime) actually occurs to punish those who intend to perpetrate such an act. I agree that speech alone is not a good reason to send a drone on someone (unless they are saying they are about to commit a terrorist attack). But what I have been saying all along, and what you guys persist in repeating despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support you in the memo, is that this document permits killing anyone who disagrees with the government. Calm down and try to see through the blind partisan hatred for a second, please.The very second they act upon what they say, then you have every right to defend yourself and others by killing that person. Until then all that it is is lip service.
You guys are terrible at analogies. We are not talking about your next-door neighbor Dave, or hearsay based on some random guy. We are talking about a top US intelligence official putting his name (and likely liberty) on the line to say there is sufficient evidence to believe Dave is a terrorist plotting to kill American citizens. Moreover, the memo requires that capture be infeasible. In your analogy, did you make any attempt to stop Dave by some other fashion (e.g. calling the police)? No. You shot him dead right there. So your analogy fails just based on that.A good analogy would be;
A person walks up to you on the street and says "Dave and his buddies are going to blow up your house" and you go over to Dave shoot him dead right there.
the legal opinion describes that criteriaWell, a precedent was set for the bolded part when Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki who, legally speaking, was still a US citizen at the time of his death. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport)
Really, I think that one of the main causes of this is due to partisanship where things are OK if your guy does it, but horrible if the other guy does the same.
EDIT:
And yet you ignore the questions of
1. What is the definition (according to the WH) of who an enemy is and what acts it constitutes
no. this is a military action. the opinion establishes that, thus eliminating civil/criminal process from being compelled2. Isn't this an attack on the 5th amendment, which allows for due process?
not unless you believe police state = military action. the opinion rendered the conclusion that an enemny remains a viable military target no matter where the individual's place of birth3. Doesn't this lead us further down the road to a police state?
no. because the opinion establishes this to be a military action. there is no need for judicial involvement because the targeting of the enemy in a military action is not something that is taken up judicially4. Doesn't this greatly upset the balance of power between the three branches of government?
This is just senior AlQuida leaders. That is all. I think by being a senior AlQueda leader, wether you are citizen or not, you are a threat to this nations citizens and interest. The more I think about this one, the more I think it is a good idea. Senior leaders of an organization that has killed many and intends to kill more should be fair game. Fire away drones.
the legal opinion describes that criteria
no. this is a military action. the opinion establishes that, thus eliminating civil/criminal process from being compelled
not unless you believe police state = military action. the opinion rendered the conclusion that an enemny remains a viable military target no matter where the individual's place of birth
that there is such disagreement as is found in this thread evidences the need for such an opinion
no. because the opinion establishes this to be a military action. there is no need for judicial involvement because the targeting of the enemy in a military action is not something that is taken up judicially
the congress still is responsible for any declaration of war and/or appropriations needed to proceed with any military action, but they have no other investment in the military action which resulted in the targeting of an enemy combatant
The FBI actually considers peaceful protests to be a form of terrorism. (Banks Deeply Involved in FBI-Coordinated Suppression of “Terrorist” Occupy Wall Street « naked capitalism) (Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism,' Angering Activists | Fox News) (ACLU Challenges Defense Department Personnel Policy To Regard Lawful Protests As)
Not their due process rights, no. They might be civilly/criminally liable for other reasons, though, and the police department might have been negligent in hiring or failing to train/supervise the person.
Um, didn't say that. Pretty sure I said it depends on the circumstances. We are talking about a very specific set of circumstances here. If you want to generalize wildly and come up with sweeping rules to cover every possible situation (but are the most appropriate for none) that's your prerogative, but I have no interest in that.
How about we both strawman until we are to the point of sending drones to kill the cute kitten next door because it's making your daughter jealous of the neighbor? What do you say?
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You were talking about due process. If you want to talk about the sixth amendment and criminal prosecutions, I discussed in a previous post why that doesn't apply to this situation, and others have as well.I don't see where that says anything about "circumstances."
The humongous difference is that the US has a limited ability and authority to act in Yemen. There are far more options for how to deal with a suspected terrorist living in LA than there are for one living in Yemen. For example, it would be a whole lot easier to bring somebody in for trial if he was hiding out in LA than if he was hiding out in Yemen.And what is the difference between taking out suspects in Yemen, and taking them out in East LA the same way? It seems to me a small step.
The only way I would even rationally consider this is if it were strictly restricted for known gang members/gang leaders.
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel
How far can the government go? What happens if they find that this situation within the continental US? Where could this go?
Great idea. Further, Deadly drone strikes would be an excellent way to wipe out the Mexican drug cartels, both in Mexico and the United States. They would have to be controlled by Americans so that the remote drone operators couldn't be bribed.
if you serve as an enemy combatant with forces against the United States, yes, kiss your ass goodbye1. So just because it's a military option, my civil liberties go out the window?
did the USA have reason to believe that person was an enemy combatant or was a collateral casualty resulting from a military action, then that person's demise was militarily legitimate. as the opinion tells us2. I just showed that a US citizen was killed via drone by Obama and you are still trying to say that its a military action?
the opinion identifies the criteria which must be in effect for one to be found a military drone target3. Define the term "enemy combatant." That's the exact same language the Bush used.
if you serve as an enemy combatant with forces against the United States, yes, kiss your ass goodbye
did the USA have reason to believe that person was an enemy combatant or was a collateral casualty resulting from a military action, then that person's demise was militarily legitimate. as the opinion tells us
the opinion identifies the criteria which must be in effect for one to be found a military drone target
you will find the three criteria within the first paragraph at this cite:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Once again, you bought up the term "enemy combatant." Please define it.
Once again, you bought up the term "enemy combatant." Please define it.
Enemy combatant | Define Enemy combatant at Dictionary.comMain Entry: enemy combatant
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any member of the armed forces of a state with which another state is at war; also, any person in an armed conflict, including terrorism, who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war
Example: The term "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions.
Etymology: c 2001
he was a citizenAnd once again I ask: Just because an "enemy combatant," is an American citizen means that their rights go out the window? I have posted evidence of how legally speaking, Anwar al-Awlaki was still a US citizen at the time he was killed.
Oh, a liberal city is the first to revolt against the Obama Justice Department---Succession must be afoot in the Ye Olde Dominion.....
City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation - US News and World Report
Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.
The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."
The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.
Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."
"If we don't get out ahead of it to establish some guidelines for how drones are used, they will be used in a very invasive way and we'll be left to try and pick up the pieces," she says.
he was a citizen
and if our authorities were dealing with him other than militarily, those rights would be preserved
however, as a member of our enemy he becomes a legitimate military target
the cited memo makes that distinction clear
what is the established time requirement to become affiliated with the enemy?So how was his kid a legitimate military target? They do have the time log when he left Denver to go to Yemen to look for his father. Sure wasn't in Yemen to long before he was taken out.....huh?
You also can't say that having lunch with a group of Al Qaeda operatives was an accident either.
what is the established time requirement to become affiliated with the enemy?
don't think the military/administration is going to share with us information which might undermine the military/intelligence-gathering methods used to make that assessmentHow about showing one piece of evidence to validate the kid was even tied to AQ? Uhm looking for one's father in a Country that one has never been use to.....might be a clue as to why one would be visiting shops showing a picture around. Learning whats up where one is at, talking to people who he discovered his father knew.....Right?
Just some common sense things that would take place when one is looking for someone. Do you think there is a legitimate argument to throw Common sense out the window?
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?