February 5, 2013
-
President Obama Assassinates American Citizens
The Obama administration is defending the use of drones to assassinate American citizens.
If the American citizen is a “senior operational leader” in a terrorist group, President Obama believes it is ok to assassinate him/her. Here is the link: LinkShould President Obama assassinate American citizens?
Comments (177)
American citizens, even if they are criminals, are guaranteed due process. This is not due process.
This will no doubt be used against Americans as Barack Obama becomes more and more like a dictator as opposed to a piss-poor president.
Sure he should definitely assassinate American’s. That is a pretty “smart” question……..But we do need to weed out the idiot’s so it might not be a bad idea.
Us American’s are really “smart people”. That is why we let it get this far. I told you so!
I’ve decided to keep my head down from now on.
Due process. We took out other terrorist leaders without it, though.
If I went to Yemen to join a terrorist cell bent on waging a terrorist attack on my fellow Americans I would expect to be considered an enemy combatant of the American people. The U.S. cannot send federal agents into such a country to arrest an American and take him to face a jury of his peers in a U.S. court of law. If the country is for example Germany or Canada the U.S. has the ability to offer due process and indeed that has happened. This is a subject that deserves more than a knee jerk reaction.
Does he accept citizen suggestions for shooting targets?
@TheSutraDude - Let’s hope Obama never applies that presumption of guilt to you!!!
He has been doing this for ages. During the election, nobody cared. I’m surprised to see interest now. I guess if somebody accepts that trials are just a frivolity and not required, then it’s ok, otherwise it’s murder.
This brings up another dirty little topic. Many times I’ve heard “Fry him!” yelled out to coworkers about to head off to jury duty. Many times I’ve heard people say, “He wouldn’t have been arrested if he wasn’t guilty.” As far as I’m concerned that whole crowd is exempted from any discussion of due process.
What a hypocrite
@EmilyandAtticus - First of all there would have to be a lot of intelligence gathered to show I was involved in a terrorist plot, intelligence gathered by many people that could be collaborated. If that was the case there would be no drone sent after me because I could be arrested and put on trial because I live in the U.S. I am not involved in terrorist activity and I do live in the U.S. so I’m not going to fall for the whole I should be paranoid theory.
@TheSutraDude - Oh I see. I live outside of the U.S., so it would be ok for your president to send a drone after me, with no trial and no chance to defend myself? Secret intelligence, that makes it ok? In other words, the president says “trust me” and you just do and hand over all of your liberties. Maybe they can totally get rid of your Constitution and just use “intelligence” instead of trials domestically. It would be so much more convenient. You do know you are advancing, literally, the same arguments Bush used for torture? Shame on you, just because it’s your candidate doesn’t mean you have to change moral positions.
still a better love story than Twilight.
They did not commit ‘crimes’ as far as international law goes, they committed acts of war. Acts of war do not guarantee due-process.
Also just a hypothetical from an article I read earlier:
Say that someone in Nazi leadership during WWII was an American citizen, Hitler for example, what would you say to the targeted killing of that person? Are they above everyone else being killed for the same acts just because they are American?
I think it would be easier if the US government just took a dive at 8 USC 1481 before killing natural born American citizens and forcefully revoke their US citizenship to make the whole thing a non-issue.
Yes, and he shouldn’t even use discretion.
@EmilyandAtticus - You are making some huge leaps here. I was and am against torture as clearly laid out in the Geneva Convention. Why in hell do you think the U.S. is going to come after you with a drone? First of all if you were considered a terrorist Canada would be alerted and involved in the investigation if Canada didn’t learn of your activities first and you would be arrested by your government for terrorist activities. You’re creating unrealistic and frankly delusional arguments in saying because the U.S. and btw Canada and many other countries target terrorists they will target us next.
President Clinton targeted Bin Laden and missed. There was a contingency against Clinton’s targeting of Bin Laden in the 1990s. Bush and Cheney decided to ignore warnings of both Bin Laden and intelligence reports about terrorist plans to use commercial airliners as missiles.
@TheSutraDude - I’m not making leaps. You said you were not a potential target because you are not engaging in terrorist activity. That is a presumption of guilt. Obama killed a 16 year old boy in one of his targeted strikes. The boy was the target. It’s murder, full stop, and your artificial claims that it’s ok because they are overseas, or you have presumed them guilty, or there is really good “secret intelligence” that somehow makes dispensing with trials ok is despicable. You say you opposed torture, well guess what. Murder is illegal too. Even when your candidate happens to be the murderer. I’m done debating. I’m deeply disappointed in you, as you didn’t strike me as somebody who would use politics to overcome basic decency. I was wrong.
Only the people who make the GoDaddy commercials.
You left out the part “associated forces.” You don’t even have to be deemed a member of Al Qaeda. Just “associated” which is a completely vague term. Coupled with the provisions of the NDAA and they don’t have to have evidence or proof of this association. They can simply say you are.
I am completely against the assassination of American citizens. It’s called the sixth amendment and I will stand by the Bill of Rights until my dying day.
I’m against drones in general because they are not accurate enough to keep from harming innocent civilians when going after the enemy. Countless innocents have been killed in these drone attacks and that is unacceptable.
One more instance of the destruction of our rights. They claim it is only for terrorists. But exactly who is a terrorist?
Tea Party Supporters http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html
Vets http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all
“Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
People who grovel at the feet of their King Obama figure even in that instance they won’t have anything to worry about. They must be so smart to be willing to let this type of mentality be solely in charge of their safety. I mean, look how well they have taken care of people who needed them in NY when Hurricane Sandy came through – FEMA closing due to weather. What a safe new world they want! Step out of line and they kill you!
Hell no. America is falling deeper and deeper into tyranny. Tossed my flag in the trash long ago.
I totally agree with having drones, and this is just from personal experience.
I was targeted by wealthier individuals that had ground equipment.
@EmilyandAtticus - Yes he was a 16 year old boy and that is a shame but it was determined he was involved with his father in plotting terrorist attacks against the U.S. His father did indeed plot at least two attacks on U.S. soil that failed. One was the shoe bomber.
There is no way the U.S. could have gone into the country and arrested them to put them on trial short of another military invasion. How did that work out in Iraq? How many innocents were killed, disabled, displaced because of the Iraq invasion?
You weren’t at Ground Zero after Bin Laden was given a pass. I was. I don’t care if you are deeply disappointed in me. That you argue because U.S. intelligence determines where terrorists are, what they plan and that they take action against them means they are coming after you next is a huge leap. On another note I find it funny that U.S. intelligence is criticized for not anticipating Benghazi. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
@TheSutraDude - LOL “a shame?” And “it was determined” by whom? A court? Or do we only have courts for you important types? Sorry, that’s all you had to say. I stand by my other comments. This conversation disgusts me too much to continue.
Let’s not forget something here. It is not only U.S. intelligence that determines targets. It’s U.S. British, Israeli, French, Canadian and the intelligence of other allied forces all of whom who have experienced the realization of terrorist threats.
@SherylM - nope.
@EmilyandAtticus - Let’s not forget something here. It is not only U.S. intelligence that determines targets. It’s U.S. British, Israeli, French, Canadian and the intelligence of other allied forces all of whom who have experienced the realization of terrorist threats.
@paoguy118 - nope. Obama is doing nothing the resembles anything other than what American presidents have done for decades.
@EmilyandAtticus - LOL? It’s a shame that a 16 year old boy was so influenced by his father that he would take to terrorist activity. Sorry you find that laughable.
@wildchildofthebluemoon - due process isn’t due outside the US. American citizen or not. Theodouche likes, like every other conservative faggot, to make it sound like citizens may be regularly killed or something. Obama has not done a thing wrong.
@EmilyandAtticus - And you are not paying attention. I’m not an important type but more to the point, I can be arrested and brought before a court of my peers. Those guys could not be arrested and brought before a court of their peers. We cannot go into that country and arrest people.
@TheSutraDude - Thank God for someone with common sense and a refreshingly practical outlook on life.
@EmilyandAtticus - what he is doing really isn’t wrong in any moral, political, or legal sense.
@shezadey - how is he a hypocrite?
@firetyger - the constitution and bill of rights apply only within US borders. What Obama did and has the power to do is not special or unusual or anything that the writers of the constitution tried to restrict.
@mtngirlsouth - there is nothing morally, politically, or legally wrong with Obama’s counterterrorist policies (well, maybe a couple but none mentioned here). If you think there is, then you are an idiot.
@MedicMark - yes it is, but this isn’t a case of tyranny. If you think it is, you need to quit what you do and shove a candle stick up your ass.
@SlickRick297 - Thank you for that.
I admit… I got paranoid, but, in these times, nothing can surprise, not even the second coming of Jesus.
In the Times magazine, they said that the drones had been in development for a long time. Now that the government was able to test its new toy overseas, and see how much people it could terrorize and kill, why not bring it to the homefront, and control any type of discontent or opposition towards the federal government. Not to mention, buying the toys can spur on expansion of military complex and the CIA, and help the government wreak in a great deal of profit. However, our Constitutional Amendments will be trampled over because fear is so ingrained in us, that we’ll probably let them do that. (Dripping with sarcasm!)
Like this stuff hasn’t been happening forever.
Read up on William Joyce “Lord Haw Haw”. He was born in New York of Irish descent and living in England. As a fascist he fled to Germany, was naturalised as a German and spent the war on the radio talking propaganda to England. After the war, he was found to possess a British passport, which he was not entitled to, and so was hung as a traitor. Drones? Yer a bunch of pussies!
@tjordanm -
My feelings are so hurt right now bro. If you really don’t think America is on a slippery slope and that we’ve been going downhill for decades and are steadily losing the very principles our country was founded upon then there is no hope for any of us.
@tjordanm - What color is the sky in your world?
As long as killing other citizens makes me safe, how could this ever be bad?
As a U.S. citizen, let’s say I decided to go overseas into potentially volatile/embargoed territory to intentionally join a radical group of people whom–informally or formally–declared war or aggressive action against the country I was from. If I did such a thing, I would do this knowingly that I would potentially forfeit certain proper rights to due process. I also would do this knowing that I’ve placed myself and others around me at risk of retaliation from the home country I was opposing.
Take a home invasion by a petty burglar, for instance. The burglar is targeting only that home and its owner/family in particular. The immediate influence is small. Assuming the burglar is shot by the defender and/or brought to justice, in most cases it just directly impacts the burglar, the owner/family and no one else. Due process can easily be applied. If one was going to plot against their own country, it usually isn’t one home or two. It’s going to be against “everyone” or the country as an entity–”them”. That potentially changes things. That person(s) are now willing to inflict harm on a wide scale. Plus, if those persons are leaders with a decent following of people willing to inflict said harm and can be organized from a foreign shore–again, that changes things. Due process becomes harder to straight-forwardly carry out. If we can arrest the organizer(s) responsible and charge them with the necessarily war crimes in a court–great! Otherwise, getting such an opportunity isn’t always guaranteed in war-like scenarios.
It’s one thing for me to run away from my home country to hide as a mere fugitive from the law. It’s another to run from my home country to hide and act as an operative against my own country. It doesn’t matter if it was my own, God, Allah or Yahweh’s will guiding my actions. I still placed myself in unusual circumstances that U.S. due process can’t always cover.
Does this mean we can go kill U.S. and foreign targets willy-nilly? Not necessarily. But war is never a clean business. The sad reality is that it’s much easier to pass judgement from our chairs here at home when the vast majority of us don’t (and probably never will) have to make such decisions.
Dan,
I am disappointed that you would pose this post as the Obama Administration assassinating American Citizens. The media may have done so but that was more for shock factor as they do with nearly every story they print. I feel once an American Citizen takes the other side and woks with an enemy of the United States, well knowing that whom they help will kill our troops and/or threaten the lives of other people, then they
forfeit
their citizenship and become wanted assassins themselves. Don’t say it like the government is flying around Anytown USA and hunting down a local convenience store robber. If indeed the CIA is flying drones over America it is for surveillance. If we as a country wants to remain free from terrorists or drug lords, then our law enforcement organizations must be able to see where the criminals are going. Drones are not used only for a kill option, but anybody that follows the news would know that.
This is of course is my opinion and I in no way support any of the parties that are mentioned here, except perhaps the military as they are simply protecting our right to practice free speech, as long as we don’t travel to Afghanistan or wherever and become an al Qaeda operative. =)
Have a lovely day.
@strife_caecus - Wonderful comment. Nice to see some don’t cave to the rumors of the media. By rumors I mean their out-of-context headlines.
@saturnnights - Agreed wholeheartedly!
@TheSutraDude - 16 years old? Wow, I’ve seen 16 year old boys do things that were traced back to how they were raised personally, so I know children are impressionable. The father is the one that needs to be locked away, then again in this case he got what he deserved . . . the father that is. The son, unfortunately had a mentor in his father that was highly delusional.
@xDark_horizonx - Agreed, I think the government should revoke citizenship status if one joins a group bent on acts of war. Of course others here will not, for some reason, see the entire picture and simply focus on one small part of it and think this small part that they are focusing on will somehow solve the overall issue.
@mtngirlsouth - Good morning, wow, this post, like others I’ve seen really get people riled up. You mentioned in your comment something that appeared to be a question, particularly, “What is a Terrorist?” I happen to be working on my degree in Homeland Security and one of my certificates is all about terrorism, from the very beginnings to this new millennium. I’m sure you probably have a good understanding of the term yourself, but I just wanted to clarify for all the others that happen to read these comments, what exactly is the definition of terrorism/terrorist:
There is
no official definition of terrorism agreed on throughout the world
,
and definitions tend to rely heavily on who is doing the defining and for what purpose. Some definitions focus on terrorist tactics to define the term, while others focus on the actor. Yet others look at the context and ask if it is military or not.
We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label “terrorism” or “terrorist” arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves “revolutionaries” or “freedom fighters,” etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence.
But this doesn’t mean that no one has tried to define terrorism! In order to prosecute terrorist acts, or distinguish them from war and other violence that is condoned, national and international institutions, as well as others, have sought to define the term. Here are some of the most frequently cited definitions.
League of Nations Convention Definition of Terrorism, 1937
Ethnic separatist violence in the 1930s provoked the League of Nations, formed after World War I to encourage world stability and peace, to define terrorism for the first time, as:
All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.
DOD Definition
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
U.S. LAW
United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From
U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine
agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a
determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.
FBI Definition
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Council of Arab Ministers
The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism was adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice in Cairo, Egypt in 1998. Terrorism was defined in the convention as:
Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.
Source: http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_4.htmAnother source
adds additional locations’ definitions and confirms the first source for what was provided there.
European Union
The European Union defines terrorism for legal/official purposes in Art.1 of the
Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002)
. This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which:
-given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization.
United Kingdom
The
United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000
defines terrorism to include an act “designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system”. An act of violence is not even necessary under this definition.
United States
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B), defines terrorism as: “…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…”
US Patriot Act of 2001:
terrorist activities include
• threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles.
• threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any “protected” persons, such as government officials
• any crime committed with “the use of any weapon or dangerous device,” when the intent of the crime is determined
to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for “mere personal monetary gain
FBI
definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
U.S. Army Manual
definition terrorism is the “calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies … [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals.” U.S. Army Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Chapter 9, 37 (14 June 2001).
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms
defines terrorism as: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Source: http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO UPSET ANY PERSON, INSTEAD IT IS INTENDED TO SHOW WHAT NOT ONLY THE U.S. CLAIMS AS TERRORISM, BUT OTHER COUNTRIES CLAIM AS TERRORISM.
I have included both of my sources so that anybody can easily verify what I have put here are not my own words, opinions or beliefs.
UGH, I attempted twice to make my above entry correct for format puposes, but to no avail. Sorry that it isn’t formatted better.
America now stands for hypocrisy, tranny, and greed. It is now also a pale reflection in the mirror of justice. One set of rules for the government, another for the populace. America uses laws to set examples, take revenge, to steal, promote agendas, and intimidate the populace rather than using ‘just’ laws as guidelines for a civilized society. If you don’t understand why I say that, then do some homework. The US government has overstepped its bounds on many fronts and most Americans blindly follow. I like freedom, but not the kind that has been dished out for the past twenty or so years. Government of, by and for the people is a concept, just that. Bill of Rights just a piece of paper to be trampled, or a remembrance of historical days gone by. Fair justice doesn’t exist within American borders…not anymore!.
No…drones should not be used by Obama to kill US citizens (or others). Obama’s just a puppet anyway. Certainly not a good example of a good citizen. And I’m not white!
@TheSutraDude - If George Bush was doing this you’d be having a conniption fit about it. Or are you saying that waterboarding (in which the victim is made uncomfortable for several seconds) is the epitome of evil but assassination (in which the target is turned into a pink mist) is just dandy? Or is that only because your lord is in charge?
My option is that if your part of a terrorist group in another country I feel you are free game you are in another country NOT following American princables I feel you should be free game.
@doremi287 - And the tranny appreciates all the support.
If they are trying to kill innocent people then yes he should take them out before they kill anyone.
Well, so much for the right to a fair trial..
I feel like if Bush did the same thing, conservatives would be praising him and liberals would be criticizing him. Your political affiliations shouldn’t shape what you morally believe is right or wrong.
@MedicMark - It has been. Obama’s policies aren’t exceptional, though.
@TheyCallHerEcho88 - Yes!
@mtngirlsouth - What color is it in yours? Crazy red? Delusional black? You are way too conservative to have an objective point of view. What you’ve posted does not correspond to reality in any way. You realize this, right?
What would the Master do?
@tjordanm - You wouldn’t know reality from a radish. Objectivism. Bah!
@TheSutraDude - What else did you expect from this rabble-rousing prick?
The only way he gets a stiffy is by being controversial on xanga, for controversy’s sake. Sad.
Used to be that liberals opposed all assassinations. They went after Kennedy for having a South Vietnamese leader assassinated and LBJ for using assassinations. They didn’t go after Bush much over his assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders. I don’t remember Bush assassinating American citizens. That’s a major step. If American citizens are collateral damage, that’s one thing, but to target them is something else. The limits keep getting shredded and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of American citizens being targeted by the military on American soil.
The federal law enforcement did it to American citizens (including children) at Ruby Ridge and Waco. A Senate committee investigating these events found that law enforcement acted abominably. This is uncontroversial. Military equipment (a troop carrier and a tank) were used at Waco.
Why don’t you ban the moron who posted above me? He’s a waste of space.
@mtngirlsouth - Tom’s thinking is typically shallow tho he imagines himself to be this awesome philosopher. Don’t let him bother you.
@TheyCallHerEcho88 - Agreed. What Bush did in furthering executive power, like the Patriot Act, was completely out of line. But this is also very much out of line. Republicans were fools to pass the renewed Patriot Act just recently–and Democrats are fools to back up this policy. It is too broad, too dangerous, and too in favor of one person in power.
@TheSutraDude - Where in the DOJ memo is there any of the sort of language supporting your ideas about limiting assassinations to countries where due process is lacking???? I’m sure you realize that law enforcement frequently bends laws to their breaking point to get convictions, which frequently goes against the spirit of the laws. Law enforcement often undermines definitions, for example arresting someone for picketing a church even tho they were on the opposite side of the street from the church, simply because the person arrested was carrying a “picket” sign. Using the military for assassinations needs to be stopped–I would have no problem with bounty hunters hauling someone to the U.S. or if there were open public hearings before assassination targets were issued. There need to be strict limits on assassinations–probably not allowing U.S. citizens to be assassinated. Yeah, I’m a bleeding heart liberal here, lol.
@soccerdadforlife - You think testimony is an actually important epistemological issue. I’m glad you aren’t a medical doctor, you’d probably think that Chinese herbal medicine is the only thing worthy of a lifetime of study.
@soccerdadforlife - Kind of getting sick of you talking trash about me. You don’t even reply to reasonable discussion, you just leave like a total puss.
Awww… Gotta love partisans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29douthat.html?_r=0
Many people seem to be ok with it cause they think it applies only to brown Americans.
Wait’ll Jeb Bush steals an election. He’ll drone strike every democrat in congress.
@Pirateotter1 -
Kill into others before they kill into you. That kind of reasoning got us into a war in Iraq.
@wildchildofthebluemoon - Were they American citizens? I don’t think our constitution extends to foreigners. Timothy McVeigh got a fair trial before he was executed.
@SherylM - No, but that’s what I’m saying. Why should we just kill random other people, but hold ourselves higher? I think we should level the playing field so that we capture other persons accused of terrorism, try them fairly, and decide on an execution just as we would someone from our own soil accused of terrorism. In theory it sounds nice, but I can’t imagine a practical way to put this into effect.
A good friend of ours was killed by the police years ago.. The circumstances? I wasn’t there. very sad. He was a good person and I have no idea what went wrong. His family has never received clear answers either. I don’t have friends who are criminals or doing illegal things, so this was a shock. Innocent people are killed by people in authority..right or wrong…
scary shit
cops are authorized to kill american citizens who resist arrest and shoot back.
@EmilyandAtticus - You again? You don’t tire of negative attention.
@tjordanm - Ya, and so do most epistemologists, historians of science, philosophers of science, forensic psychologists, attorneys, and pretty much any expert that looks at testimony. You’re living in a very strange world. Talk sense and I’ll stop talking trash. You don’t seem to ever scrutinize your own arguments and maybe that’s why they are ridiculous. You just repeat arguments that I’ve trashed previously, so you look like a crank. Did you look at the Stanford site on testimony? My argument for the strength of testimonial corroboration was strongly supported by Cohen waaaay back when. Probably before you were born.
@eertrj - Sometimes police are authorized to shoot American citizens even when they pose no threat unless attacked, which would include millions of us. Check out Ruby Ridge and Waco.
@saturnnights - Wrongo, as you typically are on the Iraq subject. Hussein was supporting terrorists generally and Bush was serious about a war on terror.
@olwd - Thank you. More often than not, I read the responses to the questions Dan posts rather than provide my own input. Over the last few years reading this particular Xanga blog, I sometimes think the questions are posed in such a way to see what knee-jerk reactions are made by its regular and not-so-regular readers. Don’t get me wrong. Some of the quick postings can be quite entertaining.
I don’t always provide input since it’s too easy to send a “knee-jerk” post that acts more as “flamebait” than anything that provokes deeper thought. So far, during the rare times I do post a comment, I have yet to see the regulars here rake me over the coals. I’m going to assume…
1. I wasn’t offensive or well-known enough to warrant a negative reply.
2. I came too late in the conversation and everyone else moved on to Dan’s next post. (Xanga tends to e-mail daily digests 1-2 days after the initial posting and by then a new topic has been posted.)
3. My comment was TL;DR (Too long; didn’t read)
@soccerdadforlife - Once you wipe your boyfriend’s jizz from your eyes, you’ll be able to read and understand what I have been saying. You clearly do not comprehend anything other than “TESTIMONY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN EPISTEMOLOGY EVER”, and when someone argues clearly (to the agreement of everyone except you) how it isn’t of primary importance, you just disappear like a pussy and take shots at me at random times. Sounds like you’re still burned from my testimony post.
@TheSutraDude - That’s a load of bullcrap! His father should’ve been tried! You are propagating the idea to deny rule of law (which is in the constitution) and to which this country is founded upon. This is tyranny, plain and simple.
And you can bet your sweet ass if it were your 16-year-old daughter, I highly doubt you would be so flippant.
@Kellsbella - You need to learn first what you are talking about. The man in question renounced his U.S. citizenship and said he had no desire to live in the U.S. again. He joined Al Qaeda which has declared war on the U.S. and our allies. He became a trusted aid to Bin Laden, trained “the Christmas bomber” and made the arrangements for the bomber to board a plane that entered the U.S. The bomber attempted to set off the explosive device as the commercial was about to land in Detroit. The stroke of luck that diverted the catastrophe was the device misfired. He was involved in other terrorist plots aimed at the U.S. and our allies as was his son. There was no way the country in which he was living was going to extradite him to the U.S. for trial. Otherwise that would have happened. He obviously didn’t turn himself in. We can go back in history and I don’t think anyone back then or now would have had a problem killing another traitor, a man named Benedict Arnold, had the opportunity presented itself.
@TheSutraDude - I know what the man did. So you basically are advocating the extermination of a human without a trial? In war, I understand this.
I must say, you are much more pleasant when you are funny.
Hosing it down as “American citizens” is a little general, don’t you think? Sure, the person could have legal American citizenship, but it could be as part of an act or group of terrorism. There are plenty of terrorist groups who have their members penetrate this country so they can blend in. I’m also really sure that the drone won’t be used to assassinate someone just because Obama thinks they’re a terrorist, the government and military services do perform interrogations and background work before they decide whether or not someone is a terrorist. Come on, now.
@Kellsbella - We are at war with Al Qaeda, officially at war. Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. and our allies. Since there was no viable way to bring him to trial the alternative to killing him would have been to allow him to keep plotting and training bombers until one succeeded. To echo something else you said, you can bet your sweet ass you wouldn’t be so flippant if you had a daughter on that Detroit bound flight that was nearly blown up, or worse…a flight that inevitably would have been blown up had this man been allowed to continue planning.
@tjordanm - Burned from your testimony post? Lol, that was more ridiculous nonsense which NOBODY BUT YOU (and maybe some other objectivist cranks) think is intelligent. Your posts just don’t deserve serious consideration, sorry. Snark + crank = ignore.
@TheSutraDude - @ChainBracelets - You all could be the targets of drones, too. All someone would have to do is say that you were linked to al Qaeda. There’d be no trial or hearing where anyone could provide evidence to disprove that claim or force the govt. to prove it. Just accuse and kill. Very neat, very simple, very open to abuse.
@tjordanm - ”You clearly do not comprehend anything other than “TESTIMONY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN EPISTEMOLOGY EVER”"
And clearly I haven’t been saying that. Try to read and understand. I have been saying that scrutinized, corroborated, empirically-based testimony is absolutely necessary to understand past events. Cohen supported the corroborated part of testimonial evidence, but I haven’t seen anyone put it all together. Philosophy of testimony is focusing mostly on the case where there’s no corroboration and views the corroborated case as proven and therefore uninteresting. But you discount corroborated testimony in favor of personal experience, even though corroborated testimony is commonly used in everyday life when there’s a controversy about the past and people claim contrary facts based on personal experience–corroborated testimony is used in law, law enforcement, counterespionage, science, history, engineering, manufacturing, etc. So that’s why your world seems very strange.
@TheSutraDude - I do not recall reading of Congress or the president declarating a war.
@soccerdadforlife - Find a brick wall, baby, and just start bangin your head against it now.
@Kellsbella - Did you sleep through 9/11 and two wars against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq? If so you must be well rested by now.
Maybe not but I don’t think I’d protest too much if he sent a drone or two to the next Tea Party rally or over to the Fox News studios.
Maybe not but I don’t think I’d protest too much if he sent a drone or two to the next Tea Party rally or over to the Fox News studios.
@soccerdadforlife - Mike Rodgers, Republican Senator from Michigan who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee says the Committee has oversight on drone operations and targeting.
Now, the bus driver down the street might target me as I cross the street because he doesn’t like the way I walk. The guy down the block might target me with his rifle because he doesn’t like the way I look. Lions and tigers and bears oh my the world of paranoia is a bitch to live in. I’m surprised I step outside.
@TheSutraDude - No. But wait! They are not “wars” according to this administration. That is the the lovliness of progressive semantics. And naturually, you won’t answer my question because they are not Islamic “terrorists” either….more semantics. (I have quite a time keeping track of the names, quite frankly.)
Look, pal Joey; if you do not think that your constitutional rights are being stomped upon, I highly suggest you read up on the events prior to WWII and see where we are.
Does Benghazi ring a bell? Gun-running to Al-Qaeda ring a bell? If a president is so concerned about us, why then does he shred the constitution and act as a complete oikophobe?
@Kellsbella - First of all the President inherited two wars. He, his administration, Congress, the media and anyone with a pulse has acknowledged the fact that we are/ were in two wars time and time again ad nauseam. Congress does not have to wake up every morning to re-declare and refund a war. Thank goodness for that because the Congress that ended it’s session last month couldn’t do shit. So you’re wrong on that count. President Obama and the administration has talked about winding down two “WARS” hundreds if not thousands of times.
The events prior to WWII? Let me think. There were about 10.000 years of events prior to WWII. Which event are you speaking about?
Gun running to Bin Laden in Afghanistan happened under the Reagan administration as did the Iran-Contra weapons running scandal.
Benghazi is but one of dozens of embassy attacks that have occurred under numerous administrations dating back decades.
If you are so concerned about us why are you upset about the death of someone who renounced his U.S. citizenship and became an Islamic terrorist bent on killing U.S. citizens? And btw he was killed without loss of life to our military. Ask those serving in the military how they feel about not having to take casualties.
@soccerdadforlife - Yes, so we struck them first.
i guess now is not a good time for me to come out publicly as an anarchist…
@TheSutraDude - A war was declared in Iraq, and this president wrapped it up. There were no declarations made with regards to Afghanistan and Libya, much less any of the other places that the U.S. decides to jump into (Mali, for instance.) This should concern you. Are we attacking or are we defending? What the hello are we doing?
With regards to WWII, I was referring to Hitler’s rise to power. The parallels are intriguing.
As for the Reagan gun-running; it was highly controlled. Though I don’t agree with this, at least it wasn’t as botched as this administration’s.
The only U.S. embassy deaths have been under Carter and Obama.
Ask those in the military how the hello they feel about Nidal Hasan.
I have enjoyed going back and forth with you, silly Sutra. I must now retire. Some of us desperately need their beauty sleep….um, that would be me. You’ve no worries as you’re quite easy on the eyes.
@TheSutraDude - So, what is the oversight exactly and why should we believe that it’s adequate? Sounds like a rehash of England’s Star Chamber. When someone like you says to trust the govt., I remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.
@saturnnights - Total nonsense. We hit Hussein because of his permitting terror training camps in Iraq and his active facilitation of terrorism in general. Hussein gave $25000 to each family of a suicide bomber, etc. This was no preemption. It was after 9-11 and was against an active terrorist facilitator.
@Kellsbella - “The only U.S. embassy deaths have been under Carter and Obama.” ?????????????????
Again, you need to learn what the hell you’re talking about. Your ignorance serves to mislead people who might be uninformed enough to take anything you say as factual.
Beirut, Lebanon, April 18, 1983: A suicide car bomb killed 63 people, including members of the U.S. embassy and CIA. The attack happened just after the Western-led Multinational Force had decided to intervene in the Lebanese Civil War. The Islamic Jihadist Organization took responsibility, saying, “This is part of the Iranian revolution’s campaign against imperialist targets throughout the world. We shall keep striking at any imperialist presence in Lebanon, including the international force.”Kuwait City, Kuwait, December 12, 1983: A truck rammed into the front gates of the U.S. embassy and exploded, killing five people. The U.S. embassy was one of several targets hit that day, including the French embassy and the Kuwait International Airport.
Jakarta, Indonesia, May 1986: The Japanese Red Army fired on the Japanese, Canadian, and U.S. embassies. The Red Army’s goals included overthrowing the Japanese government and starting a world revolution.
Rome, Italy, June 1987: The Japanese Red Army again fired on the U.S. and British embassies in Rome.
Lima, Peru, January 15, 1990: The Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, a left-wing insurgent group, bombed the U.S. embassy.
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, August 7, 1998: The bombings of these two embassies brought the name “Osama Bin Laden” to Americans’ lips for the first time. The bombings resulted in over 4,000 people injured and 223 dead. The bombings are believed to have been a retaliatory move for the arrest and torture of four members of the Al-Qaeda affiliate, The Egyptian Islamist Jihad.
Paris, France, September 13, 2001: Four men were arrested in Rotterdam on conspiracy to plant a suicide bomber in the U.S. embassy in Paris. The NATO headquarters in Brussels was also targeted. The plot was discovered in July 2001 when a conspirator named Djamel Beghal was arrested in Dubai for passport fraud. He confessed after an interrogation. All the conspirators were part of a small satellite of Al-Qaeda.
Karachi, Pakistan, June 14, 2002, February 28, 2003, March 15, 2004, and March 2, 2006:The string of bombings and attempted bombings outside the U.S. consult in Karachi were thought to be in retaliation for the War on Terror in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. The first bomb in June 2002 was a suicide bomber, who killed 12 and injured 51 people. In February 2003, a gunman killed two police officer and injured five others outside the consulate. In March 2004, an attempted bombing was stopped when police discovered 200 gallons of liquid explosives in the back of a truck. In March 2006, another suicide bomber killed six people outside a nearby Marriott Hotel.
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, July 30, 2004: The U.S. and Israeli embassies were targeted by suicide bombers. Two security guards were killed.
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, December 6, 2004: Militants breached the outer wall of the U.S. consulate and began shooting, but did not enter the consulate. Five civilians and the gunmen were killed. Ten people were wounded.
Damascus, Syria, September 12, 2006: Three gunmen were killed after they tossed grenades over the embassy’s outer wall and a car bomb exploded outside the embassy. A Syrian security guard and a Chinese diplomat also died.
It’s funny you bring Hitler up. Godwin’s Law…. “given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.” Didn’t take you long.
Want to see parallels? Because of the Treaty of Versailles the Weimar Republic in Germany legislated gun bans in Germany. Hitler rose in power as an opponent of the Weimar Republic and by 1928 gun bans were lifted. German citizens were armed under the Nazi Party with the exception of Jews by a ban about a decade later. I’ll point out something else that should be obvious. Because of the color of his skin President Obama would not have been favored by Hitler and his party, to put it lightly. Hitler was a white supremacist by today’s standards.
Nidal Hasan. You’re just throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks as pertinent to the topic.
Reagan’s gun running was highly controlled? Yeah right. The illegal sale of weapons to Iran. I guess bringing opium into the U.S. for sale on our streets to pay for weapons we sent to Bin Laden was “controlled”. Nice semantic.
@soccerdadforlife - I suppose adequate oversight in your mind would be you overseeing everything. Run for office and maybe, if you win and do time you’ll be appointed to the task. I don’t think you want to bring up Ruby Ridge and Waco. We have laws in this country prohibiting sex with minors, polygamy and the illegal possession of weapons. We also have laws against firing upon and killing law enforcement officers who uphold those laws.
@tjordanm - “the constitution and bill of rights apply only within US borders”
How does visiting another country effectively nullify my U.S. citizenship?
@soccerdadforlife - No Iraqis flew the planes on 9/11. Hussain was an ally of our gov’t during the time he was killing people with mustard gas. You’re living some republican dream again… Still. Keep dreaming, don’t wake up.
@saturnnights - Yeah, to someone living in lalaland, reality must seem like a dream. 9-11 was just a dream. Sadaam Hussein didn’t facilitate terrorism. Suuuuure. Have a nice day.
@TheSutraDude - Just trust the govt. Suurrrre. I think maybe you haven’t a clue about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Weaver and Harris were exonerated of all major charges. The govt. paid out millions to Weaver’s children. The federal witnesses were shown to have lied about events. House and Senate committees investigating Ruby Ridge and Waco castigated federal agents for misconduct. No question that Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who killed Mrs. Weaver, should have been prosecuted for manslaughter. No question that the FBI agents who perpetrated the Ruby Ridge fiasco should have been prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder. Check out the FBI rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge and how they were based on lies.
“The notion that religious nuts with guns are always a threat to public safety becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The attempt to subdue these supposedly dangerous people provokes the very violence it is intended to prevent.” It was the federal officials who were provoked to violence by their own stupid beliefs, btw. In the case of both Ruby Ridge and Waco, citizens acted against federal officials only in self defense, which was their perfect right. Have a nice day.
@Kellsbella - Yeah, people are so stupid, lol. Logic and reason go out the window with most of these people.
@soccerdadforlife - You disagree, so insinuate I live in lalaland. Good one, but the facts remain, and your neocon argument was debunked years ago. No Iraqis on those planes.
@saturnnights - Oh, and are you so innocent, claiming I’m dreaming? Yes, you’re the picture of innocence, lol. And do your strawman arguments make a hill of beans? You’re simply another populist ideologue. It’s people like you who undercut serious arguments about govt. misconduct.
@TheSutraDude - That still does not change the fact that no formal declaration of war was ever issued, and my guess is that back when Bush was president you were pointing this out.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Your guess would be wrong as your guesses tend to be. In May,
1998 Al Qaeda released a video declaring war on the U.S. In October, 2002 passed a joint resolution act authorizing the Iraq War. War is different today than it was in 1812 or during the World Wars. By the way, the U.S. has officially declared war only 5 times. Those 5 times do not include Vietnam, Grenada, Panama nor a large number of other U.S. military actions. If you want to bicker over semantics and argue it is wrong for the U.S. and its allies to combat global terrorism declared on us all, that’s your choice.
@soccerdadforlife - Sorry about that, but I had no idea you were serious. The Bushman started a preemptive war, against another country that never attacked us. I see you didn’t disagree.
@soccerdadforlife - That is but half the story. As I said (about Waco) pedophilia and polygamy are illegal in the U.S. As for Ruby Ridge, Weaver was in possession of illegal firearms. As for self-fulfilling prophecies, Weaver’s wife believed the apocalypse was coming. It was the reason they moved to Idaho in the first place and the reason they obtained illegal firearms. And you cite the Congressional investigation and findings, part of them anyway, as your valid source so…you do trust the government when it suits you.
@TheSutraDude - So you’re telling me that you were for the Iraq war and the Afghan war back when Bush was president? If so then you would be the first liberal I have ever seen who was. As I recall, the anti-war protests and moaning form the left was constant, and since Obama took over it has been completely mum. Which goes to illustrate how the majority of your people are really just unprincipled government worshippers.
You know full well what I meant by “undeclared war.” Only Congress can declare war, not the president. We are in an undeclared and undefined war. Obviously the government is not serious about fighting terrorism, if so then they would not be handing money to other terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and those asshat rebels in Syria. The war is a waste of our resources, which is probably half the point of it in the first place.
It is absolutely wrong for the government to waste lives and resources in an undeclared and undefined war. That much should be obvious to anyone.
The other day the Swat shot the man that had kidnapped a little boy, I wonder how much they were willing to take a chance upon loosing life to give that man a fair trial? Now just imagine a man in a terrorist group and a threat, should American solders loose their life just to capture a terrorist to give him a fair trial? Should one persons rights be at the cost of others, is the biggest question?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Oh yes he sang a much different tune when Bush was in office (hypocrite yes). But he is right about declared wars. These days they authorize war and since the constitution does not state the wording of Congressional war declarations, that is acceptable. But a specific authorization still is necessary. See the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ as an example of a legal war that is not officially called a “declaration” but instead a “Authorization“ but there is no legal difference between the two wordings. Yemen,Libya, Pakistan well whatever no one cares. Yes the anti war liberals are fulls of hypocrites
Waco.. pedophilia and polygamy are not death sentence crimes and those were not on the warrants that started the shootout. They came up with those crimes when things all went bad. The illegal guns did not exist. “Ruby Ridge, Weaver was in possession of illegal firearms” no he was not he was told to cut down a perfectly legal shotgun by the informant or he would not buy the gun (entrapment) Weaver owned no illegal guns, the agents who were shot at and killed. That was rules legal self defense. To avoid trial and a possibly higher settlement, the federal government
awarded Randy Weaver a $100,000 settlement and his three daughters $1
million each in August 1995. In the out-of-court settlement
You seem to think odd beliefs are justification for murder by federal agents.
On this story its mostly hypocrisy. When Bush was in office, the left was crying that he was going to kill Americans without due process. Some on the left such as Rachel Maddow are being consistent in their beliefs. A lot of them are showing themselves to be dishonest political hacks. Its all good if Obama does it all bad if a Republican does it. There are good reasons to kill an American fighting for the other side during war. But you do need to be able to justify it, and it does need to be a Congregationaly authorized war. The president does not have the power to kill Americans without due process. Or during war if that citizen is with the enemy. Killing is what war is all about
@wildchildofthebluemoon - I agree, but the original question just dealt with American Citizens so that is what I was responding to
The unfortunate thing is that some of the terrorists will never have a trial because they believe there will be 21 virgins waiting for them on the other side once they complete their suicide mission.
@firetyger - It doesn’t nullify your citizenship, just your rights guaranteed under the bill of rights and anything that the government does outside of the country. That is, the US can legally contradict its constitution when outside its physical borders.
@trunthepaige - “Its all good if Obama does it all bad if a Republican does it.” It isn’t good when traitors are killed. And see my latest post.
@saturnnights - More irrelevancy. Try to stay on point.
@TheSutraDude - The feds have no jurisdiction regarding polygamy and pedophilia.
Weaver was entrapped by a BATF informant. The informant wanted to buy a shotgun from Weaver and asked Weaver to cut it off 1/4″ below the legal limit and assured Weaver that the requested length was legal. Weaver was exonerated of the illegal weapons charge at trial. You are simply a liar. Not surprising, since your world is filled with lies and they are as natural to you as air or water. Must really suck being you.
The FBI was attempting to turn Weaver into an informant and he refused. Then the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service trespassed on Weaver’s property, killing Weaver’s dog, son, and wife. Was Weaver irrational to distrust govt.?
So you think that it was Ok to murder Mrs. Weaver and the boy because Mrs. Weaver believed in an apocalypse? You really are scum, aren’t you?
@soccerdadforlife - No I don’t believe it was OK to kill Mrs. Weaver and the boy because she believed in an impending apocalypse. Please do not twist my words. I simply referenced your reference of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think I was pretty clear on that. Calling someone scum or anything does not add a thing to a person’s argument other than to make others think the name caller has run out of arguments.
@SherylM - I just feel that if we are going to bomb the shit out of other countries, ans just assassinate terrorists, we might as well do it to US citizens. You choose to deal with the consequences if you choose to be a terrorist. They aren’t just going to go and kill people that they don’t have a ton of evidence on. Like I said, personally, I would prefer to put other terrorists on trial, and have US citizens go on trial, but it is what it is. It’s not like you and me go around and terrorize people, and I don’t feel like being blown up at school.
@soccerdadforlife - Don’t they all? LOL
@soccerdadforlife - My comment may have been irrelevant, yet you responded to it, even though it wasn’t directed at you, then tell me to stay on topic? You have a funny way of saying you agree, but thanks. Neocons really suck, don’t they?
@TheSutraDude - Well, maybe you need to take a course in writing, because your point was exceedingly unclear. You are claiming essentially that your point was irrelevant to the conversation, lol. Name-calling is relevant if accurate and is helpful for reproof. I assumed that you were replying to my comment about the feds’ view of the Weavers. Since you claim otherwise, I’ll assume that you weren’t and withdraw my handle-stick. Your comment in any case was in poor taste. Were you poking fun at the murder victims of federal criminal activity? That’s still quite despicable, but doesn’t mean that you are scum. Even if merely irony, it’s still very unsympathetic and mean. Your reputation suffers from stuff like that. Better to show sympathy for the victims of criminal activity, even if you disagree with their political/religious views, which I do.
It’s really dangerous when people allow themselves to be used to support governmental criminal activity against social pariahs. That’s essentially making people outlaws simply because of different beliefs. It allows the authorities to kill them without fear of being brought to justice. You have failed to show any sympathy for the Weavers or the Waco children who died in the fire caused by the feds. You have failed to assign any blame to the authorities who perpetrated murders at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The FBI rules of engagement to kill armed men on the Weaver property were based mostly on lies. Those rules would allow federal authorities to murder men on the Weaver property simply because they were hunting. In no case did the rules of engagement allow the killing of a fourteen-year-old boy who was running away or an unarmed woman. Clearly, those were instances of manslaughter at the very least. One could make a case that the rules of engagement were essentially a conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
There was one element in common between Waco and Ruby Ridge. Janet Reno was in charge and she was the first woman Atty. Gen. I suspect that she was trying to prove that she was tough and was behind the murderous rules of engagement at both places.
@trunthepaige - There also needs to be very public oversight of any targeting of Americans overseas and severe consequences for any abuses of authority (which consequences I doubt would ever be applied even if authority were to be abused). No Star Chambers allowed.
I am therefore against the targeting of Americans anywhere, despite the fact that it means that they might be allowed to continue nefarious activities. Waco and Ruby Ridge are reminders that the fed. govt. remains a much bigger threat than some traitors overseas.
@soccerdadforlife - Member of an enemy military are fair targets. If an American joins a enemy military they become fair targets. But you best be able to prove that case openly not behind closed doors. And yes accidents happen in war. But an assassination list is not an accident and can go through some sort of judicial review as you did have the time to make up that list. They also have the time to get it approved. Not to do that makes this all look like our president can order the death of anyone for any reason he feels like and be unquestioned
@trunthepaige - Sure, if Americans are wearing an enemy uniform, then they are fair targets. If they are operating as irregulars, that makes the problem a lot more complicated. I think we agree that anytime that an American is considered for targeting, then that has to be reviewed publicly, in advance, before they are actually assassinated. If an American is such a serious threat, it’s hard to imagine a case where there’s any question about their threat and generally there’s no urgency to prevent review before acting. There needs to be a public hearing in any case.
I still think that the danger of abuse by govt. is greater than the danger posed by individuals.
@saturnnights - Im not saying go out and randomly kill people, Im saying if a certain induvidual has killed people then they should be taken out before they kill anyone else.
I am sharing this comment because I really think this is something more people need to be aware of. I tagged the ones I tagged because I wanted to be especially sure they saw it. And to show that what @EmilyandAtticus - was saying was right on the nose.
@TheSutraDude - said, “First of all there would have to be a lot of intelligence gathered to show I was involved in a terrorist plot, intelligence gathered by many people that could be collaborated.”
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
“But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
““The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
“Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
“……But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike.”
Read the “White Paper” in PDF here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
One more thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIhFCfw0lIU
@tjordanm -
@EmilyandAtticus -
@mtngirlsouth - Thank you for this. I really appreciate it. I’ve stayed away from this post because I started getting personally attacked. When you shared your comment, I saw it. You are right on with this point. It doesn’t matter who the person is who is doing this. It’s wrong full stop. None of this is new. We’ve known about in here for years. During the election, every time I mentioned this, people went nuts on me. Great comment, and I appreciate you tagging me. Thank you again, really.
@mtngirlsouth - I edited my comment a little. But I agree with you, and thank you for answering, as some on this post just thought attacking me was the proper response.
@EmilyandAtticus - You’re welcome!
@mtngirlsouth - I was feeling really down about how people treated me on here. I know that isn’t why you posted that, but it made me feel better that you did.
@EmilyandAtticus - I am really glad it did. It used to get me really down too, until I realized that a lot of people on here think of it as just a game. Now I just think of it as a way to keep me sharp, and possibly (if indeed it is even possible to) wake some people up. If I can make someone feel better at the same time, then that’s especially nice!
@mtngirlsouth - <3 I got an especially nasty comment in my feed from this post, so I stopped reading. So you really did make me feel better, and it helps that I agree with you. I appreciate it so much.
Slowly but surely, Obama is taking away our rights. And yet no one will stop him.
“Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither” – Franklin
@mtngirlsouth - Okay I promise you if I’m attacked by a U.S. drone you’ll be the first to know. Fair enough? I wouldn’t hold your paranoid breath though. I actually believe in protecting Americans from terrorist attacks.
@tjordanm - I’m curious to know where in the Constitution it states that the U.S. government can treat its citizens however it wants provided they are visiting another country.
@firetyger - It’s a simple matter of jurisdiction. Under the constitution, both citizens and non-citizens are guaranteed their bill of rights and the government cannot contradict the constitution–so, citizenship isn’t even a factor here. If you are within the United States and are supporting al qaeda members in the United States and are arrested within the United States and are detained within the United States, then the United States government must comply with the constitution in proving that you’ve committed treason as defined in the constitution, that your fifth amendment rights are protected, and that you are entitled habeas corpus. Citizen or not. (Congress, of course, can suspend habeas corpus and put you in jail without trial.)
One you leave the United States, however, your bill of rights and how the United States government behaves is no longer restricted by the constitution. Whether you are a citizen or not, if you are a threat or not, the United States may have you assassinated–and that would not, in any way, violate the constitution because it would be outside the jurisdiction of the US constitution. Again, citizenship has nothing to do with it. The only reason the US doesn’t exercise that power is because it violates international law and it would piss off a lot of US citizens who can vote congress out. Of course, it does exercise that power rarely and only when it can justify it. It was well enough established that that bastard in Yemen needed to be dead. If he had come to the United States, entered its borders, however, he would have a right to habeas corpus and all the protections of his bill of rights.
If you feel that US Citizens must have their rights protected by the United States when outside its borders, you’ll need to enact a special jurisdiction amendment.
@tjordanm - Actually, you’re wrong about the government having to prove your guilt in anything. Thanks to the provisions of the NDAA, they’ve effectively nullified the Sixth Amendment. And the NDAA applies to you regardless of where you might be. It defines the battlefield as the entire world, including America. If you haven’t read the law yet, I’d highly suggest you do.
As for you leaving the country and the U.S. Constitution having no jurisdiction, I will have to disagree. Surely, I can’t just carry a weapon for self-defense in a country that has banned weapons. But as a U.S. citizen, if I am arrested, kidnapped, or involved in anything like that, our government usually steps in to ensure we are given a fair trial or help recover us from kidnappers. At least, that was how things were done before the NDAA. That is why we have embassies and work on foreign relations with other countries. When I travel abroad, I am not suddenly a person without a country or without any rights.
@firetyger - The statement about detention that does need to be justified and defines the US as a battlefield is contradictory. But not done Obama authored and not something he has supported. The NDAA expires in two years, so whether it is worth challenging in court to sever it from the act is not really considered. If it shows up again, it will likely be challenged. But the spirit of the clause refers to known combatants. Not regular innocent citizens. The wording definitely needs work and it will likely disappear or be removed in the future. This post blames Obama–that is clearly misleading.
Study the constitution and law more closely. I have, cause I am a nerd, and it has its problems. Jurisdiction is common to all constitutions, though. Once you are outside the borders, the US Government can literally do anything. It can arrest you, assassinate you, send you to a slave camp. In practice, the government just attempts to follow international law and expectations of its citizens–but none of those things are mandated in the constitution. Basically, our government chooses to be nice if you need help. Not legally required, though.
@firetyger - but not one* Obama was for. The constitution supersedes the NDAA. Representatives of anyone detained inside the US will always win. Congress has passed many laws to contradict the constitution and violate people’s rights–the other branches of government are strong enough to over rule congress in the event that it has violated the constitution. And acts of congress have been shot down in the past for violating the constitution. Let the NDAA cross the line–it will either expire or be severed. It simply is not a threat like economic policies are a threat right now.
@TheSutraDude - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
@mtngirlsouth - When a person has nothing of reason or logic to say he or she goes to the name-calling playbook. It’s also known as demonizing. Call someone an idiot and by doing so believe you’ve won your argument. It’s old, pathetic and beneath most people.
@mtngirlsouth - Americans, as well as all other countries, have always assassinated their own people, that’s life. BUT, this drone thing is another step towards killing American citizens on their own soil, in broad daylight with no pretenses. It’s the boiling frog syndrome – get the idea into public consciousness, let them get used to it, then take it to the next step. The difference between a boiling frog and the US population is that, contrary to popular belief, a frog will jump out of water that is being slowly heated while the American public, being stupider than a frog, will just sit there, watching Americas Next Great Asshole on tv until they’re boiled alive.
@zhyiouu - As is evident by the person who commented right above you.
@mtngirlsouth - Hmm…I’ve read his comments here. I try to keep an open mind and not let my emotions distort my thoughts (but they do ’cause I’m only human) and my impression of him is that he could be an Obama troll doing his job to confuse and distort other peoples observations by telling them how wrong they are compared to his all knowing viewpoint. There are those on the government pay hired to do just that.
@zhyiouu - What would the government stand to gain by killing its own tax-paying, innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever?
@tjordanm - I’m surprised then that you are unaware that Obama has fought to keep the provisions of the NDAA in the law. The president most definitely supports the NDAA.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/20/1134471/-Obama-Fights-to-Retain-NDAA-Power-to-Detain-US-Citizens-in-Military-Custody
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html
It is my hope that the Supreme Court will eventually make a ruling on the NDAA and call those provisions out for what they are – unconstitutional. Until then, I’m concerned with how the law is being used.
@firetyger - I don’t really see where Obama has openly supported it. As far as I can tell, it’s removal is necessary to close Guantanamo Bay and he has vowed to do that since 2008. He might support it for expediency, but I doubt that would last through 2013. As for the NDAA, I finished reading it. In the first place, it cannot supersede the constitution. In the second place, you either have to have allegiance with foreign belligerents or have taken part in the 9/11 attack. Third, there is an entire paragraph in section 1020 which explicitly states that the NDAA does not supersede local, state, or federal law enforcement practices or due process as guaranteed by the constitution. As a fourth point, the NDAA provision in question was originally authorized by congress in its declaration of war on Iraq in 2003. President Bush created that section and only now are people pissed about it. Which smells of inconsistency and mob rule. Finally, once the NDAA for FY2012 expires late this year, then anyone detained without trial would then be detained without trial according to the AUMF of 2003. Once the AUFM expires, anyone detained would then be guaranteed a trial. So by indefinite, they really only mean until President Bush’s war is officially concluded–so, this year or next at the latest.
Yours and others’ problems with this legislation has very little to do with the actual wording of the law, which in itself explicitly doesn’t contradict the constitution, and instead with another issue: you dislike this administration and will cling to anything that helps your cause. I would be wrong only if you think President Bush was worse than President Obama when it comes to defense matters.
@TheyCallHerEcho88 - Seems to me that after a certain point, governments don’t care about tax payers or innocence. If people don’t agree with the governments policies and try to do something about it, they are no longer innocent in the eyes of the government, they become a threat, and in the case of this country, a potential terrorist and enemy combatant. The governments of China, Cambodia, Russia, Germany and others slaughtered millions of their own people that could have remained as tax paying citizens had they been allowed to live. The main function of government is to remain in power. If it can do so in a mostly peaceable and organized way, then it will, but if its power is threatened, all bets are off.
@soccerdadforlife - Most of the middles eastern conflicts see us fighting where no one is waring a uniform. If you are fighting for an enemy in a legal war you not only will lily die you should die. Its the assassinations outside of waring nations that bother me
@TheSutraDude - So true you have made a habit of doing that very thing so you would be an expert at the motivations behind it
@trunthepaige - Yeah right.
@tjordanm - As the old adage goes, actions speak louder than words. He said he would veto the bill if those provisions were kept, and then did a complete one-eighty after it passed Congress. He signed it. That there is enough to say he supported it. If we had a president who said he did not support slavery but then signed a bill allowing for slavery, none would say he did not support slavery. As with anyone, politicians especially, it is not what they say that counts. But what they do.
I agree that no law supersedes the Constitution, but that does not mean they will not try. It is always a dangerous thing to have an unconstitutional bill become law. It is naive to think they will not try pushing their power. The greatest danger of the NDAA are the broad terms used. Even terrorist is a vague term. Though it says you must be “part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” to be indefinitely detained, what is an associated force? The fact remains that since you do not get a trial, the government need not present any evidence of your guilt or “association” with terrorists. They don’t need to have a single piece of proof to indefinitely detain you. They can simply say you are guilty and lock you away. That is the problem with not giving people a trial. The ACLU is none to happy with it, as you can read here: http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, went so far as to say “President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day.”
As the NDAA is a bill that Congress passes each year for the defense budget. There is no guarantee they will remove the sections that are unconstitutional, especially considering they have swatted down every attempt made thus far to have them removed. Unless the Supreme Court steps in, I believe they will keep it included each year. Until I see otherwise, I take no comfort in the future expiration of the current NDAA.
This will likely be my last response to you on this post as I cannot think of anything else that can be said. I find it disappointing that you assume to know what my position is in regards to Bush and say that the reason I dislike the NDAA is only because I dislike Obama. This is wholly untrue. The Republican party lost my support well before Bush’s last term ended. The difference between those like you and myself is that when my party betrayed me, I left. I do not go into denial and try to defend unconstitutional actions. I do not defend Bush’s actions with the Patriot Act or any of the like. Though I believe he is not as bad as Obama, as Obama has taken what Bush did and expanded upon it with a vamped up Patriot Act, drone bombings, prosecuting whistle-blowers, and now the NDAA. I’m a moderate Independent with conservative and libertarian leanings. I do not dislike Obama as a person, only as president based on his policies.
@TheSutraDude - Admissions are nice to see. Even if veiled in fake sarcastic tone
@TheSutraDude - Google yourself before you try to say you do not use personal attacks (demonizing)
@firetyger - I have no party and don’t support democrats or republicans or libertarians or any third party and I haven’t since ~2003. I am still certain you’re using this as extra ammunition against Obama specifically because he is a liberal and if this were Bush’s problem, then it wouldn’t have bothered you.
Actions do speak louder than words. Many founders supported ratification of the constitution even though it supported slavery–while they personally disagreed with it. So, are they the same as slave owners?
Further, remember that congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus. So, really this act isn’t unconstitutional. I don’t agree with it, I don’t think any government should have that much power–but the US Constitution has problems. The AUMF for Afghanistan in 2002 originally defined the battlefield as the entire world and that anyone can be detained indefinitely without trial. That was something Bush signed, and won’t expire until the war in Afgahnistan is over.
I see that there are many still blinded by the “right vs left” sides. This government has been over taken by the elitist bankers and corporations…bought out, in other words. To say that “Well, bush would have done this, so obama is right and not so bad” or “You’d be crying foul if this was Bush” is crap. It’s so clear that these politicians who are “selected” are all on the same agenda of ruining America and the economy here. Break America and then force it’s people to condone the slow decay and chipping away of our constitution, which was originally what made this country so amazing. And to the person that asked “Why would the government want to kill innocent, tax paying citizens?” Clearly is ignorant to the corrupt countries like China…and doesn’t understand that these elitists in our government support Eugenics…LOOK THAT SHIT UP and WAKE UP, PLEASE. The stupidity and justifications, which all amount to NOTHING, hurts my brain.
@TheSutraDude - No matter how you justify your position, you and all supporters of Clinton-Bush-Obama policies will forever be seen as accomplices to the murders commited by the US Government through the use of these drones.
What if POTUS is perceived to be the ‘senior operational leader’ of a terrorist organization?
Good for goose. Good for gander.
End the terroristic drone strikes. We are Americans. We are supposed to behave as such. Drone strikes done in our name make us all guilty of war crimes. Unfortunately, the same excuses that were first used following the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo will be brushed off and used again to justify the injustices of killing innocent people, the victims of collateral damage.
@wordwarrior39 - “No matter how you justify your position, you and all supporters of Clinton-Bush-Obama policies will forever be seen as accomplices to the murders commited by the US Government through the use of these drones.”
No matter how you justify your position you and all like you will be forever seen as accomplices to the murders of Americans and our allies at the hands of terrorists. Just applying your logic back at you.
@TheSutraDude - You have failed again. Congress has the authority to declare war. No war has been justly declared. Any action taken by the president that involves killing people makes it a war crime, and murder. The accused has the right to trial and to hear the evidence against them presented in a court of law. What you support is criminal, making it justifiable to gun an accused person down in cold blood. You bring shame and dishonor upon yourself for making it acceptable to shoot someone in the back. You and others like you have turned America the Beautiful into a third rate banana republic.
Dude, you and your fellow supporters of these heinous crimes, high crimes and misdemeaners that by all rights should lead to the impeachment of POTUS, are cowards. There is no righteousness, there is no justice, in how you treat others. People like you are the reason why the world hates America.
I am ashamed of you guys.
@wordwarrior39 - You are the failed one. From republican Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security:
“Rep.Peter King(R-NY) denounced the “liberal hand-wringing” that he says has characterized the reaction to a recently leaked Justice Department memo which justifies drone strikes against American citizens abroad. King said that the actions PresidentBarack Obamahas taken are necessary in order to prosecute the war on terror effectively.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-peter-king-dismisses-concerns-about-drone-warfare-so-much-liberal-hand-wringing/
Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. and our allies. George Bush declared The War on Al Qaeda. Congress voted to fund the war. That war is still being prosecuted.