View Full Version : I Support Obama 100%...
...on this issue.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite
When Americans travel to other countries to wage war against the US and engage in acts of terrorism they are engaged in treason, terrorism and are a non uniformed enemy combatant.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-130205-drone-322p.photoblog600.jpg
Samir ibn Zafar Khan (December 25, 1985 – September 30, 2011) was the Pakistani American editor and publisher of Inspire magazine, an English-language online magazine reported to be published by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). A citizen of the United States, he was killed in a drone strike in Yemen while in the presence of al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan#Activities
Anwar al-Awlaki April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American and Yemeni imam. U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet." After a request from the U.S. Congress, in November 2010 YouTube removed many of Awlaki's videos.
During Al-Awlaki's later radical period after 2006–07, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive." U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda. He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.
The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him, firing at and failing to kill him at least once, before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Two weeks later, al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members. Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated that the drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki's son was justified, and that the boy "should [have] had a more responsible father.
"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children," former White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said to a gaggle of reporters in October. "I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."
These guys are no different from John Walker Lindh, they are engaged in acts of war against the US and are members of enemy terrorists groups. If they were stateside and could be arrested, like Timothy McVeigh then that is what should be attempted. But if they are in foreign territory where just finding them can be difficult, I have no problem with drone strikes.
I agree we should use drones anyone who would willing put some Nationality before American in their status.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-24-13, 13:48
My US citizenship is a "NO **** WITH CARD" that can't be revoked by one chucklehead in the executive branch. Our citizenship is our most valuable possession and people on the left and right just continue to degrade it by passing it out like a Craker-Jack prize or reducing the protections that it encompasses.
Whacking Americans with out a trial is a really dangerous slope. Having seen the lengths that the government will take to marginalize, vilify, cover-up and harass IN JUST THE PAST FEW WEEKS, why in God's name would you want to put this kind of power in those people's hands? 'Right Wing extremists", code for white guy with a gun and
Roman citizens travelled the known planet confident that screwing with them meant the wrath of the most powerful military on the planet. 2000 years later when travelling the world, I have to fear my own government.
If BHO could, he would use drones in the US to target Tea Party members.
That day is coming. Be careful for what you wish for....
Alaskapopo
05-24-13, 13:54
My US citizenship is a "NO **** WITH CARD" that can't be revoked by one chucklehead in the executive branch. Our citizenship is our most valuable possession and people on the left and right just continue to degrade it by passing it out like a Craker-Jack prize or reducing the protections that it encompasses.
Whacking Americans with out a trial is a really dangerous slope. Having seen the lengths that the government will take to marginalize, vilify, cover-up and harass IN JUST THE PAST FEW WEEKS, why in God's name would you want to put this kind of power in those people's hands? 'Right Wing extremists", code for white guy with a gun and
Roman citizens travelled the known planet confident that screwing with them meant the wrath of the most powerful military on the planet. 2000 years later when travelling the world, I have to fear my own government.
Hang out with terrorists who are responsible for killing US citizens in a war zone then you get what you deserve when the drone strike comes. I won't be crying for anyone who dies like that.
Pat
Failure2Stop
05-24-13, 13:56
My US citizenship is a "NO **** WITH CARD" that can't be revoked by one chucklehead in the executive branch. Our citizenship is our most valuable possession and people on the left and right just continue to degrade it by passing it out like a Craker-Jack prize or reducing the protections that it encompasses.
Whacking Americans with out a trial is a really dangerous slope. Having seen the lengths that the government will take to marginalize, vilify, cover-up and harass IN JUST THE PAST FEW WEEKS, why in God's name would you want to put this kind of power in those people's hands? 'Right Wing extremists", code for white guy with a gun and
Roman citizens travelled the known planet confident that screwing with them meant the wrath of the most powerful military on the planet. 2000 years later when travelling the world, I have to fear my own government.
This.
The constitution is not an a la carte proposition.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I am all about killing terrorists. Even American terrorists who are actively engaged in combat against American military personnel or civilians.
The problem is once you travel down that road and give someone the authority to kill a citizen who is a "perceived threat" even outside of the country, it is a dangerous situation.
This should be evident with the current administration that is constantly abusing its' power. Whether we like it or not, these scum are still U.S citizens.
Ok. So what about a drone strike that is conducted in a marketplace with innocent civilians nearby? Is it their fault because they happened to be shopping?
What if the person in question is identified by a source on the ground and they are wrong?
Don't get me wrong- I give two shits about terrorists or enemy combatants or whatever their name is this week. But, we are talking about citizens.
Hang out with terrorists who are responsible for killing US citizens in a war zone then you get what you deserve when the drone strike comes. I won't be crying for anyone who dies like that.
Pat
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-24-13, 14:02
Hang out with terrorists who are responsible for killing US citizens in a war zone then you get what you deserve when the drone strike comes. I won't be crying for anyone who dies like that.
Pat
What if the are union members??? (Pat, you won't find that funny, but most other people will ;) )
I'm not against targeting bad guys, and if you are in the same room with some AQ operatives that we were going to waste anyways, meh.
Directly targeting Americans is a totally different situation.
The problem is not that we are targeting people that don't play well with others, its that where is the burden of proof? If after the bombing in Atlanta Richard Jewell had taken a trip overseas, would we have blasted him?
Have a trial in abstenia, find them guilty and sentence them to death- all out in the open. That should be the minimum standard for targeting Americans.
Alaskapopo
05-24-13, 14:05
Ok. So what about a drone strike that is conducted in a marketplace with innocent civilians nearby? Is it their fault because they happened to be shopping?
What if the person in question is identified by a source on the ground and they are wrong?
Don't get me wrong- I give two shits about terrorists or enemy combatants or whatever their name is this week. But, we are talking about citizens.
Common sense should still apply and I imagine the military takes such things as civilian casualties into the equation.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-24-13, 14:07
What if the are union members??? (Pat, you won't find that funny, but most other people will ;) )
I'm not against targeting bad guys, and if you are in the same room with some AQ operatives that we were going to waste anyways, meh.
Directly targeting Americans is a totally different situation.
The problem is not that we are targeting people that don't play well with others, its that where is the burden of proof? If after the bombing in Atlanta Richard Jewell had taken a trip overseas, would we have blasted him?
Have a trial in abstenia, find them guilty and sentence them to death- all out in the open. That should be the minimum standard for targeting Americans.
Read this thread.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=131635
Pat
If the citizen target is terrorist and in a war zone with fellow travelers, then being hit is an occupational hazard in my view. It's been done before.
I don't expect that all politicians agree with me. I do expect consistency. On the left we have people who attacked President Bush for locking people up without trial or rendering them to other places, but have nothing to say when President Obama asserts that he can kill US citizens abroad without charge. On the right, we have people who attack big government but who vote for the patriot act and have no issues with drone strikes.
Who decides what a terrorist is? Who decides what an "imminent" threat is? Who decides how big a threat has to be? Right now the answer seems to be "we do, but trust us, we are totally doing due diligence on this". No oversight? No stripping someone of their citizenship? No FISA court? What if is not Pakistan but in rugged wilderness in Alaska or Idaho, where its too much of a pain in the ass to arrest someone? Ruby Ridge with drones? The libs are ok because President Obama is making the decisions. The right is ok because its "being hard on terrorists and we don't want to appear weak". We need laws and protections that survive changes in administrations. This strikes me as a dangerous slope.
If Ali Bama could have... he'd have ordered drone strikes on the Tea Party gatherings then claim he learned about it in the news. :rolleyes:
Alpha Sierra
05-24-13, 14:25
My US citizenship is a "NO **** WITH CARD" that can't be revoked by one chucklehead in the executive branch. Our citizenship is our most valuable possession and people on the left and right just continue to degrade it by passing it out like a Craker-Jack prize or reducing the protections that it encompasses.
Whacking Americans with out a trial is a really dangerous slope. Having seen the lengths that the government will take to marginalize, vilify, cover-up and harass IN JUST THE PAST FEW WEEKS, why in God's name would you want to put this kind of power in those people's hands? 'Right Wing extremists", code for white guy with a gun and
Roman citizens travelled the known planet confident that screwing with them meant the wrath of the most powerful military on the planet. 2000 years later when travelling the world, I have to fear my own government.
Citizenship is not immunity from death in combat when you are fighting alongside the enemy.
Such is the price of actively participating in treason abroad.
Voodoo_Man
05-24-13, 14:27
If we have to abide by the US laws when we travel out of country, then we should be given the same consideration in every aspect.
My citizenship, and the rights associated with, are not limited by the borders I cross. Being killed in combat is one thing, but to be specifically targeted and killed by the executive branch without any due process is another.
Slippery slope for sure. Who gets to draw that line as to who gets killed and who doesn't? There are a lot of Americans that deserve killing, but I am not willing trade my rights away for any one of them.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-24-13, 15:16
Citizenship is not immunity from death in combat when you are fighting alongside the enemy.
Such is the price of actively participating in treason abroad.
This.
My citizenship, and the rights associated with, are not limited by the borders I cross. Being killed in combat is one thing, but to be specifically targeted and killed by the executive branch without any due process is another.
I'm not talking about combat, I'm not talking about getting wasted because you are Al-jerkies pool boy and you get collateral shrapnel. I'm talking about the targeting of Americans directly. A bozo no-no.
My US citizenship is a "NO **** WITH CARD" that can't be revoked by one chucklehead in the executive branch. Our citizenship is our most valuable possession and people on the left and right just continue to degrade it by passing it out like a Craker-Jack prize or reducing the protections that it encompasses.
Whacking Americans with out a trial is a really dangerous slope. Having seen the lengths that the government will take to marginalize, vilify, cover-up and harass IN JUST THE PAST FEW WEEKS, why in God's name would you want to put this kind of power in those people's hands? 'Right Wing extremists", code for white guy with a gun and
Let me try this.
I would NOT support the droning of a domestic terrorist like Tim McVeigh while he was on the run from law enforcement.
BUT...if the same Tim McVeigh went to Chechnya and joined some anti American terrorist group and began plotting terrorist attacks in the US and / or began actively targeting US citizens or soldiers overseas then I fully support taking him out. Doesn't matter if a CIA guys shoots him in the face or a drone gets him at his house.
If BHO could, he would use drones in the US to target Tea Party members.
That day is coming. Be careful for what you wish for....
That would be a completely different scenario which I would not support.
I would also not support drone attacks against US citizens who are members of known leftist extremist groups in the US.
I would not support drone attacks against US citizens who are KNOWN terrorists in the US.
But it's kinda hard to arrest somebody in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. Obviously if we can take these individuals alive without undue risk to US forces, then we should simply for reasons of intelligence gathering.
I don't expect that all politicians agree with me. I do expect consistency. On the left we have people who attacked President Bush for locking people up without trial or rendering them to other places, but have nothing to say when President Obama asserts that he can kill US citizens abroad without charge. On the right, we have people who attack big government but who vote for the patriot act and have no issues with drone strikes.
Who decides what a terrorist is? Who decides what an "imminent" threat is? Who decides how big a threat has to be? Right now the answer seems to be "we do, but trust us, we are totally doing due diligence on this". No oversight? No stripping someone of their citizenship? No FISA court? What if is not Pakistan but in rugged wilderness in Alaska or Idaho, where its too much of a pain in the ass to arrest someone? Ruby Ridge with drones? The libs are ok because President Obama is making the decisions. The right is ok because its "being hard on terrorists and we don't want to appear weak". We need laws and protections that survive changes in administrations. This strikes me as a dangerous slope.
I see what you did there; common sense and all.
I agree. Some here cannot follow your logic and call for the Rule of Law.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
I am all about killing terrorists. Even American terrorists who are actively engaged in combat against American military personnel or civilians.
The problem is once you travel down that road and give someone the authority to kill a citizen who is a "perceived threat" even outside of the country, it is a dangerous situation.
This should be evident with the current administration that is constantly abusing its' power. Whether we like it or not, these scum are still U.S citizens.
I think members of Al Quida are more than a "perceived threat." The only one on that list who doesn't quite qualify is Abdulrahman al-Awlaki but if he was in fact with members of Al Quida at the time, then that's kinda like being the guy standing next to Hitler when the bomb went off.
I am all about killing terrorists. Even American terrorists who are actively engaged in combat against American military personnel or civilians.
The problem is once you travel down that road and give someone the authority to kill a citizen who is a "perceived threat" even outside of the country, it is a dangerous situation.
This should be evident with the current administration that is constantly abusing its' power. Whether we like it or not, these scum are still U.S citizens.
This.
Allow it today, tomorrow it'll be used on you.
This.
Allow it today, tomorrow it'll be used on you.
Well quite honestly, it wouldn't be the first time the government killed US citizens in the US because arrest would have been difficult.
Just ask Robert Mathews, the SLA, MOVE, Branch Davidians, etc. Really the only difference is the method.
DreadPirateMoyer
05-24-13, 16:47
Everyone keeps talking about "if you commit treason, blah blah blah," but there's been no trial. There's been no group of peers that have determined, based on a totality of evidence, that treason has been committed and death is the appropriate punishment. These American citizens didn't get sentenced by anyone in any sort of due process. Their only sentencing was committed in secret, in a back room, by one man wielding incredible and terrifying executive powers. If you're content with that being all the justification one needs to be blown up, you trust government far more than I do.
I don't trust the government. At all. Especially a President who has committed such executive excess as Obama. There needs to be a trial for an American to be stripped of their rights. Period. End of story. Allowing one man in an ivory tower to decide who deserves rights and who doesn't is way scarier than some guy growing a beard and moving to Yemen so he can publish a blog for radicals.
As we've seen with guns and gun laws, rights infringements and government power creep and expand incessantly. Carving out exceptions within basic rights will eventually lead to those rights not existing at all. We either honor them or not. No exceptions. Full stop.
Everyone keeps talking about "if you commit treason, blah blah blah," but there's been no trial. There's been no group of peers that have determined, based on a totality of evidence, that treason has been committed and death is the appropriate punishment. These American citizens didn't get sentenced by anyone in any sort of due process.
Please tell me about the trials of Robert Mathews, the SLA and members of MOVE.
Alpha Sierra
05-24-13, 16:53
If we have to abide by the US laws when we travel out of country, then we should be given the same consideration in every aspect.
The overwhelming majority of federal law does not apply to you once you set foot outside the US.
Moose-Knuckle
05-24-13, 16:54
If BHO could, he would use drones in the US to target Tea Party members.
That day is coming. Be careful for what you wish for....
Barry would never do such a thing, I mean he would never utilize the Department of the Treasury to go after his political rivals, he would never use the Department of Justice to spy on the free press, he would never order a SOF QRF to stand down and allow CIA officers and a US Ambassador to perish amongst a coordinated terrorist attack, he would never allow the Attorney General to traffic legal US firearms illegally across the US/Mexico border that would end up being used against thousands of Mexican nationals and US Federal LEOs. :sarcastic:
Sure why not let the Government grease whom ever they want, where ever they want.....even if you are a U.S. citizen WITH RIGHTS INCLUDING DUE PROCESS.
Yep sounds like a great idea, Government has never lied, cheated, or stolen anything.......Government is perfect.
Yep you love those drone attacks, until YOU become the terrorist.......which isn't too far down the road. But that's ok, most folks reap what they sow.
Voodoo_Man
05-24-13, 17:08
The overwhelming majority of federal law does not apply to you once you set foot outside the US.
There are some Secret Service employee's who would disagree.
Sure why not let the Government grease whom ever they want, where ever they want.....even if you are a U.S. citizen WITH RIGHTS INCLUDING DUE PROCESS.
Please tell me about the due process afforded to Robert Mathews, the SLA and members of MOVE.
Starting an "I support Obama 100%" on whatever thread and actually meaning it considering where it is we are now is rather odd. At this point he could push a child out of the way of an oncoming car and I would still hope it hits him.
Everyone keeps talking about "if you commit treason, blah blah blah," but there's been no trial. There's been no group of peers that have determined, based on a totality of evidence, that treason has been committed and death is the appropriate punishment. These American citizens didn't get sentenced by anyone in any sort of due process. Their only sentencing was committed in secret, in a back room, by one man wielding incredible and terrifying executive powers. If you're content with that being all the justification one needs to be blown up, you trust government far more than I do.
I don't trust the government. At all. Especially a President who has committed such executive excess as Obama. There needs to be a trial for an American to be stripped of their rights. Period. End of story. Allowing one man in an ivory tower to decide who deserves rights and who doesn't is way scarier than some guy growing a beard and moving to Yemen so he can publish a blog for radicals.
As we've seen with guns and gun laws, rights infringements and government power creep and expand incessantly. Carving out exceptions within basic rights will eventually lead to those rights not existing at all. We either honor them or not. No exceptions. Full stop.
Very well said and I'm in total agreement.
The_War_Wagon
05-24-13, 17:37
Our citizenship is our most valuable possession and people on the left and right just continue to degrade it by passing it out like a Craker-Jack prize...
You can have a democratic republic, OR, you can have Mohammedanism. You DON'T get both.
Stop passing out the cracker jack prize, to the people eager to DESTROY us with it.
Starting an "I support Obama 100%" on whatever thread and actually meaning it considering where it is we are now is rather odd. At this point he could push a child out of the way of an oncoming car and I would still hope it hits him.
Not everyone is going to agree with me on everything.
Basically if Bush or Reagan did this, I'd have no problem. As a consequence I have no problem with Obama doing it. I have pretty well defined my criteria regarding what I would and would not find acceptable.
Not everyone is going to agree with me on everything.
Basically if Bush or Reagan did this, I'd have no problem. As a consequence I have no problem with Obama doing it. I have pretty well defined my criteria regarding what I would and would not find acceptable.
If it were being done in a discreet manner like it was before drones and by the right people I would also have no issue with it whatsoever. But these evil bastards are becoming enabled and one day rest assured will do it here for very worst of reasons.
For better or worse, we have rights. No matter what the accusation is.
I see what you did there; common sense and all.
I agree. Some here cannot follow your logic and call for the Rule of Law.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Yeah, its hard to have data driven conversations that don't involve looking at all data through an ideological prism these days. As a middle of the road kind of guy, I feel like I'm standing on a beach eroded by both sides.
You're far more likely to die having your TV falling on you and crushing you than you are to be killed by a terrorist. In fact you're 9 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html). Or get hit by lightning, drown in a bathtub, etc, etc.
Emotional, knee-jerk reactions to terrorism incidents have done nothing but erode our Constitution and freedoms. Politicians say "they hate us for our freedom" and do everything in their power to restrict it further.
Magic_Salad0892
05-24-13, 19:03
I think that when you join a foreign terrorist group that is waging a war against Americans, you give up your country of origin.
They should be treated like other Al Queda fighters.
But ROE should be "arrest anybody you can" anyway, for intel/justice reasons.
However, the process for vetting information regarding Americans switching sides is one I'm relatively ignorant about, but I'm relatively sure that the intelligence agencies are competent.
MountainRaven
05-24-13, 19:32
Due process is clearly out-dated. If the Founding Fathers still lived today, they wouldn't have allowed it.
Nor would they have allowed us to speak as we wished.
Nor would they have allowed us to own arms.
Nor would they have protected us from having troops quartered in our homes.
&c.
Habeas corpus has already been indefinitely suspended. Why not let the president kill whoever he wants with drones and SOF?
GeorgiaBoy
05-24-13, 19:39
Due process is clearly out-dated. If the Founding Fathers still lived today, they wouldn't have allowed it.
Nor would they have allowed us to speak as we wished.
Nor would they have allowed us to own arms.
Nor would they have protected us from having troops quartered in our homes.
&c.
Habeas corpus has already been indefinitely suspended. Why not let the president kill whoever he wants with drones and SOF?
Spot on. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, right?
You're far more likely to die having your TV falling on you and crushing you than you are to be killed by a terrorist. In fact you're 9 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html). Or get hit by lightning, drown in a bathtub, etc, etc.
Emotional, knee-jerk reactions to terrorism incidents have done nothing but erode our Constitution and freedoms. Politicians say "they hate us for our freedom" and do everything in their power to restrict it further.
And that is why I oppose things like the Patriot Act because it wasn't necessary to restrict the rights of US citizens as most terrorists are NOT US citizens and thus don't enjoy the same rights.
However, when a US citizen joins a terrorist group be it Al Quida, RAF or whatever, they simply lose the same expectation of arrest and due process for the same reason such expectations are voided when US citizens get into fire fights like in the case of Chris Dorner.
We cannot expect countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to help us, or in some cases even permit us to facilitate an arrest and even if we have the official ok to do so, that still doesn't mean the opportunity will ever present itself.
How long did it take us to find Osama Bin Laden? Now imagine if we had to arrest him, make sure his rights weren't violated and then put him on trial.
That is the real distinction.
If Samir ibn Zafar Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki were still stateside and members of groups allied with or connected with Al Quida it would be a completely different story and I'd never support a drone attack on either of them on US soil.
That is because there is a reasonable expectation that LE can investigate and find them, attempt arrest and give them all of the opportunities of due process that they would be entitled to, same as Tim McVeigh and Nadal Hassan.
Due process is clearly out-dated. If the Founding Fathers still lived today, they wouldn't have allowed it.
Nor would they have allowed us to speak as we wished.
Nor would they have allowed us to own arms.
Nor would they have protected us from having troops quartered in our homes.
&c.
Habeas corpus has already been indefinitely suspended. Why not let the president kill whoever he wants with drones and SOF?
One more time, please tell me about the due process afforded to Robert Mathews, the SLA and members of MOVE.
So far nobody seems to be able to do so.
Spot on. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, right?
Didn't that "piece of paper" allow us to shoot US citizens who took up arms on behalf of Germany in WWII?
Belmont31R
05-24-13, 20:18
You're far more likely to die having your TV falling on you and crushing you than you are to be killed by a terrorist. In fact you're 9 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html). Or get hit by lightning, drown in a bathtub, etc, etc.
Emotional, knee-jerk reactions to terrorism incidents have done nothing but erode our Constitution and freedoms. Politicians say "they hate us for our freedom" and do everything in their power to restrict it further.
That is the real crux here. Politicians got another boogeyman as an excuse to take away our rights. There is constant push to keep people afraid of terrorism even though its near the bottom of the list.
In the last 12 years we have seen a huge expansion of government to what is a non-threat for most Americans. A great loss of liberty has occurred.
These people they kill overseas just end up being used as campaign slogans and turned into bumper stickers.
GeorgiaBoy
05-24-13, 21:11
Didn't that "piece of paper" allow us to shoot US citizens who took up arms on behalf of Germany in WWII?
We also illegally detained thousands of Japanese American citizens. Two wrongs don't make a right.
That is the real crux here. Politicians got another boogeyman as an excuse to take away our rights. There is constant push to keep people afraid of terrorism even though its near the bottom of the list.
In the last 12 years we have seen a huge expansion of government to what is a non-threat for most Americans. A great loss of liberty has occurred.
These people they kill overseas just end up being used as campaign slogans and turned into bumper stickers.
Never let a crisis go to waste.
Belmont31R
05-24-13, 21:22
Never let a crisis go to waste.
That's your guy's people saying that.
That's your guy's people saying that.
:blink: Me no likey Rahm
We are at a declared state of war with AQ. The one targeted was an obvious enemy AQ. I don't see the citizenship as an issue here, he was a legitimate military target. The other three were AQ and killed in attacks against AQ, they were not specifically targeted.
The ability to target individuals is here. The genie can't be put back in the bottle and not using it on appropriate targets DOES NOT REMOVE THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE ONE BIT.
We also illegally detained thousands of Japanese American citizens. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Actually I don't think the Constitution permitted the internment of Japanese Americans, I think it was done despite the Constitution.
And just for clarification, are you saying it was WRONG to shoot US citizens who joined the Waffen SS or Wehrmacht and took up arms against US forces?
We are at a declared state of war with AQ. The one targeted was an obvious enemy AQ. I don't see the citizenship as an issue here, he was a legitimate military target. The other three were AQ and killed in attacks against AQ, they were not specifically targeted.
The ability to target individuals is here. The genie can't be put back in the bottle and not using it on appropriate targets DOES NOT REMOVE THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE ONE BIT.
My God. THANK YOU.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-24-13, 23:58
Actually I don't think the Constitution permitted the internment of Japanese Americans, I think it was done despite the Constitution.
And just for clarification, are you saying it was WRONG to shoot US citizens who joined the Waffen SS or Wehrmacht and took up arms against US forces?
It's the individual targeting without any due process. The key is the individual. With no oversight or finding of guilt.
MountainRaven
05-25-13, 00:27
One more time, please tell me about the due process afforded to Robert Mathews, the SLA and members of MOVE.
So far nobody seems to be able to do so.
So because we shredded the Constitution in the past, we should keep on cutting it into smaller and smaller pieces?
We are at a declared state of war with AQ. The one targeted was an obvious enemy AQ. I don't see the citizenship as an issue here, he was a legitimate military target. The other three were AQ and killed in attacks against AQ, they were not specifically targeted.
The ability to target individuals is here. The genie can't be put back in the bottle and not using it on appropriate targets DOES NOT REMOVE THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE ONE BIT.
Really? Cuz last time I checked, the United States hadn't been at war since 1945.
So because we shredded the Constitution in the past, we should keep on cutting it into smaller and smaller pieces?
We didn't shred the Constitution in those instances. There was a reason due process couldn't be applied. I was hoping to help you to that realization.
Do you now understand why there was no "due process" in the cases of Robert Mathews, the SLA and members of MOVE?
Really? Cuz last time I checked, the United States hadn't been at war since 1945.
I can help you with that one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress
2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan
al-Qaeda S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001 98–0 420–1 George W. Bush
Barack Obama Ongoing
On giving even the devil himself benefit of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
On giving even the devil himself benefit of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
I'm going to keep that in mind for later on. Great post on the topic!
Please tell me about the due process afforded to Robert Mathews, the SLA and members of MOVE.
I have no idea what the hell you're referencing, and I'm not going to waste my time looking it up as I'm 90% certain its nonsense that doesn't pertain to this discussion. (im sure you'll reference it later)
Bottom line here, you will eventually reap what you sow. So thats fine, you can sell your soul to the Government and approve of them being Judge, Jury, and Executioner. I won't.
Just don't start complaining when they start dropping bombs here.
Steyr two quick things. First off if you recall I recently had no issue with them using the drones overseas and in fact was supportive of such actions. But that was before the current events of the day, particularly in regard to the Justice Dept. These people can not be trusted with anything anymore and God knows what line they intend to cross next.
Second you have twice referenced MOVE, a group that prior to the fire was a disruptive scourge threatening and preaching violence via a loudspeaker in front of their home to all around them, black and white. They were known to be armed and highly unstable and many attempts were made to deal with them diplomatically before they barricaded themselves in and the charge was dropped from the helicopter. They were violent and insane to the end and even after, so can you tell us what else it was that you think they deserved from our system?
By the way, in about '99 or so they orchestrated a still unsolved murder up the road from the apt complex I lived at the time in Maple Shade, NJ. After the fire some of them had moved here and a father of one of the children wanted to get his kid away from their mother, a MOVE member. After being threatened numerous times he was shot and killed while sitting in his car waiting to pick his child up.
It's the individual targeting without any due process. The key is the individual. With no oversight or finding of guilt.
This.
We loose our identity as Americans a little more every day. From tv shows to school we are shown every day that it is necessary to give up our freedoms to be safe. Take a show like the following; how many people have not cared or even cheered when the lead character breaks in a house without a warrant or tortures a suspect in the name of public safety? We watch and get warped into believing this is ok. The youth of today have no chance of learning what the constitution means or what the bill of rights stands for when exposed to these shows, movies, media and so called teachers and academics.
People have a hard time with the nature of our current war. War has never included due process and nobody here seems willing to admit it. If there was an active large scale shooting war inside the USA we would send the military to kill the enemy, not expect the Sheriff to arrest them. In fact I'm pretty sure it has happened exactly like that. The enemy was even "gasp" held indefinitely if captured, without charge or due process until the end of the war.
Steyr two quick things. First off if you recall I recently had no issue with them using the drones overseas and in fact was supportive of such actions. But that was before the current events of the day, particularly in regard to the Justice Dept. These people can not be trusted with anything anymore and God knows what line they intend to cross next.
Second you have twice referenced MOVE, a group that prior to the fire was a disruptive scourge threatening and preaching violence via a loudspeaker in front of their home to all around them, black and white. They were known to be armed and highly unstable and many attempts were made to deal with them diplomatically before they barricaded themselves in and the charge was dropped from the helicopter. They were violent and insane to the end and even after, so can you tell us what else it was that you think they deserved from our system?
By the way, in about '99 or so they orchestrated a still unsolved murder up the road from the apt complex I lived at the time in Maple Shade, NJ. After the fire some of them had moved here and a father of one of the children wanted to get his kid away from their mother, a MOVE member. After being threatened numerous times he was shot and killed while sitting in his car waiting to pick his child up.
Robert Mathews and the SLA was similarly "bad people." I'm trying to baby step everyone to a realization.
I have no idea what the hell you're referencing, and I'm not going to waste my time looking it up as I'm 90% certain its nonsense that doesn't pertain to this discussion. (im sure you'll reference it later)
Bottom line here, you will eventually reap what you sow. So thats fine, you can sell your soul to the Government and approve of them being Judge, Jury, and Executioner. I won't.
Just don't start complaining when they start dropping bombs here.
Actually those examples are critical to this discussion. But before I can go forward with anyone, I need to know how they feel about certain cases such as the "due process" afforded to US citizens such as Robert Mathews, members of the SLA and members of groups like MOVE.
Robert Mathews and the SLA was similarly "bad people." I'm trying to baby step everyone to a realization.
Well then "baby step" me to realize where the government went too far or outside the lines regarding MOVE because I still can't walk there yet. If you are thinking of the fire, remember that it was completely unintentional.
MountainRaven
05-25-13, 12:32
The United States is not at war. Congress has authorized the President to use force against those responsible for the attacks of 9/11 where-ever they might be and against whoever might be sheltering or aiding them.
Furthermore, no one is saying that if you're being shot at that you cannot and should not shoot back "because due process". Only that a reasonable effort should be made to apprehend them.
The simple fact is that acts of terrorism are crimes. The people who commit those crimes are, therefore, criminals.
People who (are alleged to) have committed crimes against the US or her people are Constitutionally entitled to due process, whether they are American citizens or not. This is why we have had drug lords and narco-terrorists in South and Central America arrested and deported to the US to stand trial.
Just because the local authorities aren't cooperative is a piss-poor reason to rob someone of their right to due process....
Hey, maybe we should use a drone to kill Roman Polanski! He was actually found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers and the local authorities aren't cooperating with us! Brilliant!
I hate to quote Belloc, but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
Well then "baby step" me to realize where the government went too far or outside the lines regarding MOVE because I still can't walk there yet. If you are thinking of the fire, remember that it was completely unintentional.
For YOU I will, there was NOTHING wrong with it.
It had to be done because there really was no "due process" opportunity. Same as with Robert Mathews, Chris Dorner and the SLA.
And when dealing with Al Quida leadership in places like Yemen and Afghanistan it becomes even harder. So people who think we are simply going to "arrest" people like Anwar al-Awlaki, I'd like to hear their plan.
Who is going to do it, how are we going to do it and which lives are going to be risked trying it?
The United States is not at war. Congress has authorized the President to use force against those responsible for the attacks of 9/11 where-ever they might be and against whoever might be sheltering or aiding them.
Furthermore, no one is saying that if you're being shot at that you cannot and should not shoot back "because due process". Only that a reasonable effort should be made to apprehend them.
The simple fact is that acts of terrorism are crimes. The people who commit those crimes are, therefore, criminals.
People who (are alleged to) have committed crimes against the US or her people are Constitutionally entitled to due process, whether they are American citizens or not. This is why we have had drug lords and narco-terrorists in South and Central America arrested and deported to the US to stand trial.
Just because the local authorities aren't cooperative is a piss-poor reason to rob someone of their right to due process....
Well by all means issue an arrest warrant and send the local deputies out to get these guys. If they submit to arrest we won't have to drone them.
Hey, maybe we should use a drone to kill Roman Polanski! He was actually found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers and the local authorities aren't cooperating with us! Brilliant!
Is he guilty of a capital crime, is he putting the lives of Americans at risk?
But thank you for the example, it's been HOW MANY YEARS and we can't even arrest Roman Polanski? We even know where he is most of the time and we still can't arrest him. But we should be able to be more successful for guys like Anwar al-Awlaki in places like Yemen?
And when dealing with Al Quida leadership in places like Yemen and Afghanistan it becomes even harder. So people who think we are simply going to "arrest" people like Anwar al-Awlaki, I'd like to hear their plan.
The capture of Adolf Eichmann.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBi0XejzekU
I hate to quote Belloc, but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
That had to hurt. :D
MountainRaven
05-25-13, 14:20
Well by all means issue an arrest warrant and send the local deputies out to get these guys. If they submit to arrest we won't have to drone them.
Let's do that, then.
Is he guilty of a capital crime, is he putting the lives of Americans at risk?
I don't know.
But I also don't know if some guy sitting in a cafe in Pakistan is, either. Nor will we ever know because "classified". Because "secret Federal courts".
But thank you for the example, it's been HOW MANY YEARS and we can't even arrest Roman Polanski? We even know where he is most of the time and we still can't arrest him. But we should be able to be more successful for guys like Anwar al-Awlaki in places like Yemen?
Eichmann (from Belloc's example) evaded capture - after the war had ended - for fifteen years. If we include the years in which the war was fought, that brings the number to twenty-one or twenty-two.
If we're going to call our participation in Afghanistan a war, and we're going to call the end date 2014, it would be equivalent to capturing UBL (or any other senior leader of al-Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan) in 2029. If we're using the beginning of the war (in 2001), instead, that places it in 2022.
That had to hurt. :D
Good stuff's good stuff. :p
I'm not going to use a Toyota Hilux just because SOF use them. And I'm not going to not use one just because terrorists and insurgents and other 'unsavory' types use them. ;)
The capture of Adolf Eichmann.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBi0XejzekU
Even though I agree with you for the most part this is not a good example. Do you need me to clarify why, all circumstances considered, that is the case or might you be able to foresee what I will say? Bet you can if you think on it.
The United States is not at war.
To use a technicality to deflect from the fact that billions of dollars, countless resources and weaponry, millions of personnel, many thousands of which are now deceased, have been deployed into two hostile nations over a period now spanning over a decade is not really war is just a tad bit disingenuous.
For YOU I will, there was NOTHING wrong with it.
It had to be done because there really was no "due process" opportunity. Same as with Robert Mathews, Chris Dorner and the SLA.
And when dealing with Al Quida leadership in places like Yemen and Afghanistan it becomes even harder. So people who think we are simply going to "arrest" people like Anwar al-Awlaki, I'd like to hear their plan.
Who is going to do it, how are we going to do it and which lives are going to be risked trying it?
I get where you're coming from now but it's important to realize that attempts to bring them to justice were made yet were impossible due to the circumstance. Still even when they burned it was not the intended result.
Nor will we ever know because "classified". Because "secret Federal courts".
Never a good thing for sustaining the principles necessary for liberty and freedom.
Eichmann (from Belloc's example) evaded capture - after the war had ended - for fifteen years. If we include the years in which the war was fought, that brings the number to twenty-one or twenty-two.
If we're going to call our participation in Afghanistan a war, and we're going to call the end date 2014, it would be equivalent to capturing UBL (or any other senior leader of al-Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan) in 2029. If we're using the beginning of the war (in 2001), instead, that places it in 2022.
All well and good, except that the Mossad spent most of that time just trying to find Eichmann, however if we are launching hellfire missiles, then in fact we have already located the individual we were looking for in the first place.
Never mind. Have a good weekend.
MountainRaven
05-25-13, 15:36
To use a technicality to deflect from the fact that billions of dollars, countless resources and weaponry, millions of personnel, many thousands of which are now deceased, have been deployed into two hostile nations over a period now spanning over a decade is not really war is just a tad bit disingenuous.
Only Congress can declare war and they have not done so. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your Congress critters. (Nor are they likely to do so, because that would mean that it has to end eventually.)
I do not deny that the United States is directly and indirectly involved in conflicts on a somewhat-less-than-global-scale as a result of "Senate Joint Resolution 23". And I do not deny that it has been (and will likely continue to be) grossly expensive in both blood and gold. Nor do I deny that by any definition but that used by Congress and the Constitution, we are at war.
Legally speaking, however, we are not at war. And, as we are a nation of laws (or supposed to be), that is what matters. For good or ill.
All well and good, except that the Mossad spent most of that time just trying to find Eichmann, however if we are launching hellfire missiles, then in fact we have already located the individual we were looking for in the first place.
Right, because before we fire a missile at them, we're having people sworn to uphold the law book them, finger print them, take their DNA, and otherwise ensuring they are who we think they are.
Oh, wait. We're relying on tribals who have been at war with each other for centuries to objectively identify people who may or may not be members of their tribe or an opposing tribe. Just like how a bitter ex isn't going to try to get you in trouble with the law and a "good" spouse will do anything to keep you out of it.
Let's do that, then.
Good luck. I'm sure if we used that method we might have tracked down Bin Laden by 2035.
I don't know.
But I also don't know if some guy sitting in a cafe in Pakistan is, either. Nor will we ever know because "classified". Because "secret Federal courts".
It's a good thing we DO KNOW some stuff about guys like Anwar al-Awlaki. And I can't believe you'd actually try and equate an Al Quida leader with a child molester. While Polanski is a major scumbag, he's not helping plan the deaths of hundreds of people.
Eichmann (from Belloc's example) evaded capture - after the war had ended - for fifteen years. If we include the years in which the war was fought, that brings the number to twenty-one or twenty-two.
And Eichmann wasn't even being harbored by a friendly host nation with a support network and look how long it took to finally grab him. Grabbing Al Quida members like Anwar al-Awlaki is a bit more difficult.
Now certainly if it's POSSIBLE to capture them, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we should do so. But if he happened to be a US citizen and we didn't have the opportunity to capture him would you prefer KSM to still be running around making things happen?
What you, and another guy, don't seem to appreciate is that after the war guys like Eichmann and Klaus Barbie were no longer directing operations that sent people to their deaths. There was no urgency, beyond considerations of justice for their victims, to find and capture or kill them. Nobody ever did capture or kill Mengele but that doesn't mean people kept dying.
With members of Al Quida that's a little bit different. Every day they are alive, people are being killed, plans are being made and people everywhere remain at risk.
An another note I just find it hilarious that the guys who normally complain when people criticize Obama are now on the other side of the fence when I finally give Obama credit for doing something correctly.
I get where you're coming from now but it's important to realize that attempts to bring them to justice were made yet were impossible due to the circumstance. Still even when they burned it was not the intended result.
And if we could have reasonably been able to bring guys like Anwar al-Awlaki to justice, we always should. I prefer that we interrogate them for information, make them face their victims and hold them accountable for their crimes.
We simply don't always get that opportunity.
MountainRaven
05-25-13, 16:17
Good luck. I'm sure if we used that method we might have tracked down Bin Laden by 2035.
And then we might have learned why he denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. And now we will probably never know.
It's a good thing we DO KNOW some stuff about guys like Anwar al-Awlaki. And I can't believe you'd actually try and equate an Al Quida leader with a child molester. While Polanski is a major scumbag, he's not helping plan the deaths of hundreds of people.
Why wouldn't I?
They're both criminals on the run from the law. Both hiding in countries that are friendly to us.
One was found guilty of a criminal offense in an open court. The other not.
And yet the one we killed with an extralegal drone strike was the one who had never been in a court of law.
And Eichmann wasn't even being harbored by a friendly host nation with a support network and look how long it took to finally grab him. Grabbing Al Quida members like Anwar al-Awlaki is a bit more difficult.
Happily, we have stealth helicopters and military bases around the world and intelligence services which make it easier to hide from us if you're a smart individual rather than part of a large network. UBL likely would still be alive today if he didn't have his support network (and likely would have lived undiscovered potentially for decades more).
Now certainly if it's POSSIBLE to capture them, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we should do so. But if he happened to be a US citizen and we didn't have the opportunity to capture him would you prefer KSM to still be running around making things happen?
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
What you, and another guy, don't seem to appreciate is that after the war guys like Eichmann and Klaus Barbie were no longer directing operations that sent people to their deaths. There was no urgency, beyond considerations of justice for their victims, to find and capture or kill them. Nobody ever did capture or kill Mengele but that doesn't mean people kept dying.
With members of Al Quida that's a little bit different. Every day they are alive, people are being killed, plans are being made and people everywhere remain at risk.
Everyday human beings are alive, they are plotting each others demise and working to make it happen. I do not disagree that life would be better without such persons.
Much the same thing can be said about other international organized criminal enterprises, such as the Mafia, 'hacktivists', &c.
Where do we draw the line between members of the Mafia planning on blowing up a diner to intimidate the community and members of a terrorist cell blowing up a diner to terrorize the community?
An another note I just find it hilarious that the guys who normally complain when people criticize Obama are now on the other side of the fence when I finally give Obama credit for doing something correctly.
Life would be so boring if we all agreed with each other on everything. ;)
And it's not grossly inconceivable that they agree with Obama on somethings and disagree with him on others... and those things just happen to be things that you and they do not disagree with.
It is ironical, though, yeah.
Right, because before we fire a missile at them, we're having people sworn to uphold the law book them, finger print them, take their DNA, and otherwise ensuring they are who we think they are.
Oh, wait. We're relying on tribals who have been at war with each other for centuries to objectively identify people who may or may not be members of their tribe or an opposing tribe. Just like how a bitter ex isn't going to try to get you in trouble with the law and a "good" spouse will do anything to keep you out of it.
Which is simply part of the reason why we should not be raining down hellfire missiles.
Good luck. I'm sure if we used that method we might have tracked down Bin Laden by 2035.
We would have tracked him down exactly when we did, perhaps even sooner, making you off by 25 years or so.
And Eichmann wasn't even being harbored by a friendly host nation with a support network and look how long it took to finally grab him.
They only received a tip that he might be hiding in Argentina in 1957, but nothing came if it. They received another tip in 1959, found him in March 1960, and had him in custody on May 11, 1960.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
What grieves me is that this sentiment still struggles for ascendency in our world.
Even though I agree with you for the most part this is not a good example. Do you need me to clarify why, all circumstances considered, that is the case or might you be able to foresee what I will say? Bet you can if you think on it.
I believe I know what it is you are suggesting. Perhaps you can judge if I am on the right track from my response. The reason I think it is a good example is because the suggestion was made that there are no other viable options and this was my 'not only this, but perhaps also this' reply.
And then we might have learned why he denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. And now we will probably never know.
Bin Laden could have probably told us LOTS of things. But I'd rather have him dead and not know than running around with us still trying to get him.
Why wouldn't I?
They're both criminals on the run from the law. Both hiding in countries that are friendly to us.
One was found guilty of a criminal offense in an open court. The other not.
And yet the one we killed with an extralegal drone strike was the one who had never been in a court of law.
For the reason I explained that you don't seem to grasp or are ignoring. And there are all kinds of criminals, they range from shoplifters to serial killers. Some are so dangerous you simply have to kill them if the opportunity presents itself to stop them and capture isn't possible. This is why Chris Dorner is dead and not on trial.
Happily, we have stealth helicopters and military bases around the world and intelligence services which make it easier to hide from us if you're a smart individual rather than part of a large network. UBL likely would still be alive today if he didn't have his support network (and likely would have lived undiscovered potentially for decades more).
And yet, with the entire world looking it still took us more than a decade to find him and that was with a "no capture" scenario.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Who was innocent?
Everyday human beings are alive, they are plotting each others demise and working to make it happen. I do not disagree that life would be better without such persons.
Much the same thing can be said about other international organized criminal enterprises, such as the Mafia, 'hacktivists', &c.
Where do we draw the line between members of the Mafia planning on blowing up a diner to intimidate the community and members of a terrorist cell blowing up a diner to terrorize the community?
Well the mafia doesn't really intimidate communities anymore. So let's take gang members who kill regular folks every day. If you live in LA you are much more likely to be killed by a gang member than a terrorist.
That said, events like 9-11 and Pearl Harbor hit every American in a way that a gang member never will. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, there really is no point in discussing it further.
And the average American can take steps to protect himself from scumbags like gang members, they have a chance. When you are sitting on a plane being flown by Al Quida members, you don't have the same chances.
Life would be so boring if we all agreed with each other on everything. ;)
And it's not grossly inconceivable that they agree with Obama on somethings and disagree with him on others... and those things just happen to be things that you and they do not disagree with.
It is ironical, though, yeah.
You don't have to agree, I just hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
MountainRaven
05-25-13, 20:15
Bin Laden could have probably told us LOTS of things. But I'd rather have him dead and not know than running around with us still trying to get him.
Fair enough.
For the reason I explained that you don't seem to grasp or are ignoring. And there are all kinds of criminals, they range from shoplifters to serial killers. Some are so dangerous you simply have to kill them if the opportunity presents itself to stop them and capture isn't possible. This is why Chris Dorner is dead and not on trial.
I agree. It's not possible to capture every wanted man or woman. But at least Chris Dorner was given a chance. He chose not to take it. But he had it.
Who was innocent?
Last time I checked, the accused was always presumed to be innocent. To say nothing of the innocent lives lost in such strikes. Explosions are not particularly discriminating as compared to, say, a bullet.
Well the mafia doesn't really intimidate communities anymore. So let's take gang members who kill regular folks every day. If you live in LA you are much more likely to be killed by a gang member than a terrorist.
That said, events like 9-11 and Pearl Harbor hit every American in a way that a gang member never will. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, there really is no point in discussing it further.
And the average American can take steps to protect himself from scumbags like gang members, they have a chance. When you are sitting on a plane being flown by Al Quida members, you don't have the same chances.
I understand what you're talking about. Unless I miss my mark, you're talking about the psychological and emotional impact of acts of terror.
But you do remember that those same impacts are present in mass shootings like Sandy Hook, correct? And that it was for that reason alone that some gun grabbers were making their move months ago, yes?
Were we not in agreement, then, about the dangers of curtailing individual liberty and expanding the power of government as part of an emotional response to such tragedies?
You don't have to agree, I just hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
I do. Or I think I do. I hope you do likewise with me.
Actually those examples are critical to this discussion. But before I can go forward with anyone, I need to know how they feel about certain cases such as the "due process" afforded to US citizens such as Robert Mathews, members of the SLA and members of groups like MOVE.
Ya. Have a nice day with your failed logic....
How about this, why didn't our beloved Federal Government apprehend anwar al-awlaki when he ATE LUNCH AT THE PENTAGON?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/
I'll have to know how you feel about that certain case before I can go forward in this discussion....
Ya. Have a nice day with your failed logic....
The man you are insulting has produced more logic in the past few days than you likely have in the entirety of your life. In fact beyond instruction as to how to be known as an obnoxious creep I would never adhere to any suggestions or "logic" you could ever offer.
How about this, why didn't our beloved Federal Government apprehend anwar al-awlaki when he ATE LUNCH AT THE PENTAGON?
You mean specifically the Obama administration? Man you've really outdone yourself here. Flat out impressive. :rolleyes:
Please tell me you are not really a police officer with the ability to ruin another's life via your exceptionally poor judgment. That in itself is a crime if somehow true.
RogerinTPA
05-25-13, 21:13
Even before the half dozen scandals which has surfaced over the past 7 or so months, I don't support or trust anything this administration has done. If any good policy comes out for the good of this nation as a whole, I treat it as merely being coincidental, and certainly not by design...
The United States is not at war.
Wrong
Congress has authorized the President to use force against those responsible for the attacks of 9/11 where-ever they might be and against whoever might be sheltering or aiding them.
This makes a declared war, because the power to declare war is given to congress. There is no requirement to specifically use the words "declare war" in the Constitution and "authorization of force" is just a more modern legal equivalent.
The simple fact is that acts of terrorism are crimes. The people who commit those crimes are, therefore, criminals.
So you don't disagree the action of killing enemy leadership is proper for war, you just claim that it's not war. International terrorism on this scale cannot be so easily swept into "just crime" in my opinion. These would be undeniable acts of war if committed by a State and the goals are also those of a State at war, not a traditional criminal group. Calling it "just crime" is a gross oversimplification to me.
Just because the local authorities aren't cooperative is a piss-poor reason to rob someone of their right to due process... Again, my position is that we are at war and due process does not and has never applied to enemy in war. I believe you are protesting the "loss" of a Right that has never existed on the battlefield.
MountainRaven
05-25-13, 23:51
Wrong
This makes a declared war, because the power to declare war is given to congress. There is no requirement to specifically use the words "declare war" in the Constitution and "authorization of force" is just a more modern legal equivalent.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
So you don't disagree the action of killing enemy leadership is proper for war, you just claim that it's not war. International terrorism on this scale cannot be so easily swept into "just crime" in my opinion. These would be undeniable acts of war if committed by a State and the goals are also those of a State at war, not a traditional criminal group. Calling it "just crime" is a gross oversimplification to me.
I am ambivalent about the idea, at best. It's hard to hold peace talks if one side or both are frightened that their leadership will be killed for showing up.
So, no, in a traditional, straight-up fight, I am not a proponent of targeting enemy leadership outside the field of battle.
But we're not engaged in a traditional, straight up fight, are we?
If we were, we would have an honest-to-God declaration of war from Congress. We would have a country to go stomp into the dirt, and some dictator or president to sue for peace after we've trampled their army into the dirt.
Again, my position is that we are at war and due process does not and has never applied to enemy in war. I believe you are protesting the "loss" of a Right that has never existed on the battlefield.
And my position is that we are not at war in any legal sense.
And you're going to have to define the battlefield. Last time I checked, this conflict was at least partially defined by the fact that the battlefield is everywhere and nowhere. And that 'everywhere' includes the United States.
Which means that all the President (this one or the next) has to do is get someone to swear that you - or I or Steyr or Belloc or anybody else who doesn't agree with him - are plotting terroristy things, and suddenly he has carte blanche to drop a bomb on your home. And after the fact, they can say, no, we're not going to show you the evidence (that doesn't exist) because it's classified.
And that's what we're going to have to live with, if we continue down this path. And our children after us. For if we win this battle of ideologies, we will still carry all the structural and legal damage we have done to ourselves, long after all the damage caused by the opposition has faded to dust and memories.
Last time I checked, the accused was always presumed to be innocent. To say nothing of the innocent lives lost in such strikes. Explosions are not particularly discriminating as compared to, say, a bullet.
Suspected terrorists would have to be presumed innocent if they were US citizens. US citizens who are KNOWN to be Al Quida leaders no longer have that presumption.
I understand what you're talking about. Unless I miss my mark, you're talking about the psychological and emotional impact of acts of terror.
But you do remember that those same impacts are present in mass shootings like Sandy Hook, correct? And that it was for that reason alone that some gun grabbers were making their move months ago, yes?
Were we not in agreement, then, about the dangers of curtailing individual liberty and expanding the power of government as part of an emotional response to such tragedies?
Not exactly. It's not the emotional impact. With things like gang bangers and school shooters the average person can take certain precautions that will provide at least a means of facing those kinds of attacks.
I can carry a gun, avoid gang prone areas and either violate gun free school zones or avoid them completely.
When it comes to acts of terrorism like 9-11, the Boston bombings, etc. there is little in the way of preventative measure that an individual can do besides stay at home and hide behind the curtains.
So while you are more likely to be confronted by a gang member, terrorists are actually worse.
I won't get into the additional ramifications such as terrorism changing the environments, laws and economy in ways no gang banger could.
You mean specifically the Obama administration? Man you've really outdone yourself here. Flat out impressive. :rolleyes:
Very nice. Let me break it down for you Einstein....
If our Federal Government believed Al-awlaki was a serious enough threat to our national security that they felt it acceptable to blow his ass off the planet, why in the world was he allowed anywhere near the Pentagon?
I'm sure you can't answer that and you'll just use some childish insult to attempt to belittle me, which I find hilarious.....so have at it.
Also what do you do for a living? Oh wait....I don't give a shit.
I'm sure you can't answer that and you'll just use some childish insult to attempt to belittle me, which I find hilarious.....so have at it.
I have no desire to belittle you whatsoever. What I am trying to do however is get you to look at how it is you tend to communicate with others here and pull back on the tendency to jump down throats while using the verbal hammer.
If you would just be kind enough to make a few minor adjustments then all is forgotten and it's just smiles and sunshine from here. :cool:
ForTehNguyen
05-26-13, 10:21
Suspected terrorists would have to be presumed innocent if they were US citizens. US citizens who are KNOWN to be Al Quida leaders no longer have that presumption.
who gets to decide this? "Known" by who? No one else gets to see the supposed evidence. Some secret kill committee that has no additional check and balance to take a US citizen's life? Basically with this power the kill committee can declare anyone they want a terrorist and have them be killed. Details of which were kept secret from public and we only found out when it was LEAKED and the adminstration had to do a monster backpedal. Not to mention it took a 13 hour filibuster to finally get the administration to reveal the details of. You are ok with giving the govt a blank check without any oversight to kill a US citizen. Where is the line drawn at? If I went out to pre emptively kill someone that I "believe" may hurt me I would go to prison for murder.
People are so quick to cheer when our govt cuts corners around the constitution to get some supposed bad guy but completely forget that corner cutting can come back to get us.
It was recently found out other US citizens died that were not intentionally the target of the drone just because they were nearby. Is this ok?
If we were, we would have an honest-to-God declaration of war from Congress. We would have a country to go stomp into the dirt, and some dictator or president to sue for peace after we've trampled their army into the dirt.
So this all comes down to a romantic idea about what war should be?
I have to admit I was wrong about the Authorization of Force being more modern. It was used by the Founders twice before the US first declared war and directs a war limited in scope or against non State enemies. They had no problem calling them the "Quasi-War (this was a navel war with France), and the First Barbary War. The Second Barbary War came after the declared War of 1812.
And a general who makes and directs battle plans is as much a part of the battle as soldiers on the front line. Civilian leadership like a congress or parliament that does not have command and control would not be a military target.
VooDoo6Actual
05-26-13, 11:20
who gets to decide this? "Known" by who? No one else gets to see the supposed evidence. Some secret kill committee that has no additional check and balance to take a US citizen's life? Basically with this power the kill committee can declare anyone they want a terrorist and have them be killed. Details of which were kept secret from public and we only found out when it was LEAKED and the adminstration had to do a monster backpedal. Not to mention it took a 13 hour filibuster to finally get the administration to reveal the details of. You are ok with giving the govt a blank check without any oversight to kill a US citizen. Where is the line drawn at? If I went out to pre emptively kill someone that I "believe" may hurt me I would go to prison for murder.
People are so quick to cheer when our govt cuts corners around the constitution to get some supposed bad guy but completely forget that corner cutting can come back to get us.
It was recently found out other US citizens died that were not intentionally the target of the drone just because they were nearby. Is this ok?
So who's going to do anything about it ?
There is your biggest problem. File all your complaints to the UN all you want to. All your International Treaty violations/accords, Amnesty International etc. you want to. The reality is it's "Toothless Tiger's" until you get the masses on board. The US is the UN. It's funded by all the banks (IMF, WB etc.) It was created w/ this vision in mind ultimately of a World Peace free from Nuclear / Arms etc. supported by the 1961 D0S document "Freedom from War". All the money comes from US dollars printed by Fed Reserve as the US dollar is the World's reserve money. All the Nations' who receive Foreign Aid $ comes from US Gov. who is frontman for Fed Reserve owned by Bankers are willing to let the US set up Mil Bases, research facilities, secret prisons in exchange for the fiat $ printed. The common & obvious easy answer is it helps our country. So there's the motive & answer as to why they accept the World's reserve currency w/ open arms.
And therein lies the biggest problem w/ a "Rogue" ideology overstepping it's LIMITS . You can "use" the Constitutional rights guaranteed as a PROBLEM now regarding National Security issues. You now have created a the NEED for a potential tyranical government to abuse it's power for it's own 'COG' / National Security even though NOT a SINGLE AMERICAN can clearly define what our National Security policy is or is even consulted as to what it should be.
It patently obvious that the Drone Strikes' collateral damage is CREATING more terrorism by the collateral damage in the minds of families who lose their innocent. Your not defeating an enemy by drone strikes w/ collateral damage, your empowering his cause. Your breeding more of them. What that is so difficult for the 'cult of personality' types to comprehend is beyond my comprehension. You have now galvanized a continuing enemy who unites w/ others for a common cause. The outcome is continuing more War & enemies assuredly. Then when others see that the US is overwhelmed economically (manufactured by PTB for obvious reasons) by the GWOT costs. The GWOT takes on a new mantra or moves into a new phase. The new Header or 'Narrative' is "It's the World's problem why should America & it's allies be the only ones fighting the GWOT ?"
Now you open the dialogue for a UN / Globalists' strategy which is the azimuth & trajectory it has been on for some time. It's a 'Global problem' is often recited.
The reality is that collateral damage from Drone strikes CREATES & ensures more War. When you couple Muruna/Kitman/Taqiyya w/ Muslim Islofacists' ideology you get revolutions/War import that ideology into the US w/ lax / relaxed liberal immigration policies etc. propagating more intrusive loss of Constitutional/BOR encroachments of natural born US citizens. GWB even said that was a fundamental & frustrating problem they had w/ GWOT.
& so it goes...
Here's a bit about 'Muruna' since I know most people have not a clue:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/muruna-violating-sharia-to-fool-the-west/
Westerners who understand Islamic deception often refer to “taqiyya” as being the tactic of lying in order to guard the faith. Sunni Muslim apologists counter that taqiyya is a Shiite doctrine, while accusing Shiites of being rabblerousers who sanction “mut’a” (pleasure marriage), which is nothing more than prostitution.
Shiites can easily find equivalents to taqiyya and mut’a in the Sunni Muslim world. They are called “misyar” and “muruna.”
While Westerners cringe at the thought of religiously sanctioned prostitution like mut’a, they are less familiar with the Sunni-sanctioned misyar, which literally means “the traveler’s marriage.” It was established to assist with the sexual needs of travelers — a Sunni Muslim male may enter into a contract with a woman in order to gain sexual gratification without the financial obligation necessary to maintain a wife.
As a consequence, the sin of adultery never takes place because the sex contract is an official marriage license. An abundance of misyar “middlemen” can seal these interim deals. For internet savvy travelers, there are countless websites like Mesiaronline that allow men to arrange these marriages globally, including in the United States, from the comfort of their hotel rooms.
Misyar was first made legal in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Sunnis who approve of misyar may condemn the Shiite practice of mut’a, which does not require two witnesses as misyar does. Shiites argue that Allah and the Qur’an are the only two witnesses they need.
Arabic translations reveal that Sunnis and Shiites have much more in common than just sanctioned prostitution. Few Westerners are familiar with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood revival of the doctrine of muruna, which literally means “stealth” or “flexibility.” It is far worse than taqiyya, since it sanctions all prohibitions that block Muslim interests, even blasphemous ones.
Muruna allows Muslims to sow division and confusion in the Western world. In a recent sermon, this doctrine was exercised by General Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Muhammad Badei, who laid out his vision for the post-revolutionary era while revealing aspects of a strategy followers should use to deal with secularism in the meantime:
Do not fight the ways of the world because they are overpowering but try to overcome and use them, change their course, and pit some of them against others.
When Badei says to “overcome and use” the “ways of the world”, he is instructing Muslims worldwide on how to overcome Western secularism. It was precisely this purpose for which muruna was prescribed by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the main Muslim Brotherhood intellect who initiated it in December 1989 while in the United States during the annual conference of the Association of Muslim Youth Forums. He was with Mohammed Hamadi, a leading rebel in Libya who participated heavily in the “Arab Spring.” Hamadi is also the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Mauritania.
This doctrine and long-term plan should be of great interest to Westerners. In what the forum termed “The Priorities of The Islamic Movement in The Next Three Decades” (from 1990 to 2020), they planned to attain what they described as “the goals of the Islamic Movement.” The plan confirms Badei’s utopian hope for the “establishment of an Islamic state, governed according to Qur’anic law — first in Egypt and eventually in the entire world.” Accordingly, muruna calls for “organized, popular work to return to Islam in order to lead society, all of society … to bring back the caliphate … to announce Jihad either by arms, by pen, or by heart.”
Muruna was designed to catapult and advance Sharia by using Western means. If one thinks that Sharia, with its harsh code, is problematic enough, how about the elimination of the kinder, gentler laws? Muruna is literally accomplished by permitting behavior normally so eschewed by Sharia that Westerners logically assume a more moderate version of Islam when such prohibitions are suddenly permitted. Westerners’ eyes are, in fact, deceiving them. Muruna is about going to great lengths to gain interests through a much deeper level of deception while simultaneously lowering the guard and gaining the support of the infidels.
Note the following quote taken from the series titled Preparing the Atmosphere under the title The Workings of Al-Si’a and Muruna:
Sharia’s ability to be flexible and inclusive is that it cares for their needs while excusing the burdens Muslims have to endure. For the sake of their destiny, it was made lawful for them to have exceptions from the law that are appropriate for them since these exceptions match their general goals to make it easy for humanity by removing the chains of [Sharia] rules they were made to adhere to in previous Sharia rulings.
By reversing Islamic law, muruna concludes an amazing doctrine that permits all prohibitions:
When evil and harm conflict as necessities demand, we must then choose the least of the two evils or harms. This is what the experts in jurisprudence decided … if interests and harms/evils conflict, or benefits conflict with evils, what is then to be decided is to review each benefit and each harm and its consequences, so the minor evils are forgiven for the sake of the greater long-term benefit. The evil is also accepted even if that evil is extreme and normally considered deplorable.
threeheadeddog
05-26-13, 11:23
I am not going to get into a back and forth here, but this is my view of the subject(it is of course the only correct view:D)
Our rights mean something. The right of due process as well as the right of habeas corpus(which I think fits given the context of this thread) shoud mean something as well. I dont believe they need to be extended to someone "engaged in combat" as the very essence of combat negates the ability to apply them.
What I think is important here is that it seems we all have a different view of what "engaged in combat" means. For me that means actively shooting/threatening(on a battle field whether that be Afganistan or some diner with a bomb strapped to him) opposition in such a way that you cannont apprehend. Sitting in a compound, diner, you place of work or residence, or sitting at a table building a bomb do not apply as "engaged in combat" in my view.
Dorner is a perfect example. I was accepting of the way it all happened because he was "ingaged in combat" or whatever the non "war" equivilent was. Had he been planning the distruction all of L.A. I would not have agreed with the droning(or assasination by rifle/bomb/other means as I believe that if not on the battlefield than drones are in the same catagory) of him.
My post on the Dorner situation helps clarify my view.(where i was defending the process that led to Dorner's death)
Everyone deserves due process, it is ingrained in our constitution as a right that must be respected by our govt. This ,IMHO after much thought(I have pondered this for over an hour and am still not firm in my belief), does not fall under the protection of due process.
Lets for a second forget this was Dorner. A man was engaged in a firefight where he shot at two cops (after a chase where he "reportedly" engaged other LEO unprovoked) and then proceeded into a cabin and continued to fire on police. At this point he is actively engaged in trying to end peoples lives.
Basically I am willing to give the LEO the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I do this FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS I GIVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO KILL AN INTRUDER THE BENIFIT OF THE DOUBT. A person is not required to contain, capture, and turn over violent intruders to the police in order to preserve that intruders "right" to due process. They(the people defending there home, car, or willfully defending others) are allowed to use deadly force to preserve the lives of the innocent first.
Had this happened differently(like maby finding Dorner in a cabin to begin with where he didn't engage in violent activity the entire corse of the incident) than I would think differently.
I'm not sure why there is such an obsession over the citizenship of drone targets. The Constitutional protections in the BOR are not limited to US citizens. Immigrants to the US who are charged with a crime go through the same justice system as citizens. Thus, people who protest over the killing a US citizen such as al-Awlaki should protest any military drone strike that targets a non-citizen to be intellectually consistent since the BOR is blind to citizenship. On the other hand, the Founders never intended the BOR to apply on a battlefield - even when the battles are fought on US streets.
In other words, anyone engaging in hostilities against the US is participating in a military campaign that is outside of our justice system. Just like WWII, international rules of war replace national laws such as the BOR on the battlefield. This is particularly true if a citizen is waging war from a foreign shore with support from a host nation. In fact, they enjoy even less protections than most foreign troops since they conduct hostilities without a uniform and target primarily civilians.
While on the battlefield, citizen terrorists can be targeted at any opportune moment just like any other combatant. If captured during active hostilities they can be treated as an illegal enemy combatant for violating laws of war. If captured after hostilities are over, they can be tried for treason as well as any war crimes committed during hostilities.
MountainRaven
05-26-13, 12:55
Suspected terrorists would have to be presumed innocent if they were US citizens. US citizens who are KNOWN to be Al Quida leaders no longer have that presumption.
Our Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the rights we already have because we exist. Just because someone was born somewhere else doesn't mean we get to treat them any differently, unless you want us to engage in moral relativism.
Which is fine. But it cheapens the ideals on which our nation was founded and makes our rights that much less secure.
Not exactly. It's not the emotional impact. With things like gang bangers and school shooters the average person can take certain precautions that will provide at least a means of facing those kinds of attacks.
I can carry a gun, avoid gang prone areas and either violate gun free school zones or avoid them completely.
When it comes to acts of terrorism like 9-11, the Boston bombings, etc. there is little in the way of preventative measure that an individual can do besides stay at home and hide behind the curtains.
So while you are more likely to be confronted by a gang member, terrorists are actually worse.
I won't get into the additional ramifications such as terrorism changing the environments, laws and economy in ways no gang banger could.
You cannot do anything about being hit by a drunk driver, either. Or being attacked by a rabid dog or cougar while out for a run. Or having a car or an airplane crash through your bedroom window in your sleep. Or a train derailing with a cargo of heavier-than-air gases that suffocate you, your family, and your neighborhood. Or your neighbor down stairs starting a fire that traps you in your apartment to die a slow, roasting death. Even staying in your house and hiding behind the curtains cannot protect you from these.
Do you propose that we ban the use of trains (and trucks) to carry goods and commodities? That we hang every person found guilty of DUI? Create wildlife-free running trails and ban domesticated dogs? Mount autonomous air defense systems on the roof of every house and apartment complex? Ban all open flames in apartment buildings and condos?
So this all comes down to a romantic idea about what war should be?
I have to admit I was wrong about the Authorization of Force being more modern. It was used by the Founders twice before the US first declared war and directs a war limited in scope or against non State enemies. They had no problem calling them the "Quasi-War (this was a navel war with France), and the First Barbary War. The Second Barbary War came after the declared War of 1812.
And a general who makes and directs battle plans is as much a part of the battle as soldiers on the front line. Civilian leadership like a congress or parliament that does not have command and control would not be a military target.
Except we're not at war. Not with a nation or with a single organization. But with a series of independent, international, highly dedicated criminal organizations. We defeat one, another one will rise in its place. And while we're focused on the big ones, a small one, or a small group of individuals not aligned (directly) with one of the known groups will strike at us. As they did in Boston. And Fort Hood.
Today it's terrorists. Tomorrow it's narco-terrorists. Next week it's the drug dealer down the street. And then it will be our turn.
The Barbary Wars were directed against individual actors. Once they accomplished their mission, they were done. We didn't stay in Libya for another decade and a half trying to rebuild Tripoli, all while organizations desirous of our failure went elsewhere and we followed like loyal lapdogs.
define battlefield, define combatant.... good luck with that
Voodoochild
05-26-13, 13:31
I'm closing this thread because the level of ****tardedness has become too much. Everyone go outside get some fresh air and simmer down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.