|
I've chosen Glen's write up on the document because its one of the best that I've come across so far that breaks down some of the issues clearly.
I really do encourage folks to read not the article first but the actual "white paper" first (found at the bottom of the article). Then read the article and form your own opinions and arguments.
For now the only thing I have to add is that this isn't even the actual secret memo used by the administration. This is a "white paper" that isn't even signed or dated but it gives us some insight to what the actual document might be like. Keep that in mind that this is essentially a watered down leak.
|
for future reference you can further acronym that to wpfobdojja
|
Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc...
|
I find it scary that the same people who control the drones and can order the strike are the same ones who define what terrorism is. They can kill you without evidence. We are shift further and further away from the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. This isn't even guilty until proven innocent. It is just guilty.
|
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
|
I may be a little blind or watch too many movies, but on the flip side; doesn't this "legal killing" thing (assuming it's used in a not-so-reprehensible way) mean that the President can deal with threats *without* being bound by the legal process, thus potentially save lives rather than avenge lives?
It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"...
|
if jack bauer is the one leading the operation, i'm ok with it.
|
On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc...
Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
|
On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote: It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"...
Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers.
Otherwise, there is no difference between the US and the oppressive factions it claims to be against, other than we assume Obama is a nice enough guy not to kill the wrong people.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 06 2013 09:11 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote: It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"... Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers. This is exactly what the debate over Executive Orders is. It's just most people don't know or care about it.
The fact that the US can use drone strikes against its citizens is headline grabbing but I think most informed people already realized it was the case. The interesting thing about this is just the legal gymnastics they have to do to justify it.
|
On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote: I may be a little blind or watch too many movies, but on the flip side; doesn't this "legal killing" thing (assuming it's used in a not-so-reprehensible way) mean that the President can deal with threats *without* being bound by the legal process, thus potentially save lives rather than avenge lives?
It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"...
That's the thing though. The administration wants to keep the "process" secret. That's why Holder came out a few months ago saying there's a difference between judicial process and due process.
The process being used here can be anything - they won't define it. Literally and I'm not being facetious, they could be doing rock, scissors, paper as Colbert put it to determine if you're "guilty".
Even if we decided that there was a process, it doesn't make it okay that only the executive branch has anything to do with it. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate that if someone accuses you being a thief, they don't get to judge you and also punish you based on their "process".
|
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
LOL you think that bush is far from the tree? I believe that he was the root of the problem we have today. The war on terrorism is and was an unfortunate excuse for murder on a large scale. To be honest I would not have been surprised if this was a bush policy.
|
The process of selecting who to kill isn't entirely a mystery. There were a couple interviews last year about the national security meetings, on Tuesdays I think, when Obama and his closest advisers get dossiers on potential targets and discuss the merits of executing them or not. I doubt that there's a 'vote' on the matter, and don't know if Obama simply does a thumbs-up or thumbs-down routine, as I'm not aware of the details of the debates. Basically, the administration was trying to argue that they take this responsibility with all the weight and seriousness it demands as they act in the best interest of the nation's security. Take that as you will.
For me, I don't mind the drone strikes too much. Terrorists, especially the Islamic extremists like Al-Qaeda, have repeatedly said they're at war with the US and act accordingly. Killing them before they kill us is certainly not pretty, nor perfect, but is much preferable to the converse. Also, there aren't many 'legal gymnastics' involved in these Executive Orders. Presidents have been using such orders with increasing regularity and, on the whole, have been proven to be justified in doing so. Even though Holder didn't explain it well by any means, there is a difference between judicial and due process. To expect to detain, try, and sentence mass murderers, or wannabe killers, of varying nationalities is not feasible. However, the risk to innocent civilians seems to be undervalued and the case of a guy like Anwar Al-Awlaki is troubling to say the least.
|
That was kind of an awful article to read, I question its validity.
|
On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote: Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
Yeah, it's obviously better to invade and destabilize an entire region at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, as opposed to precise, surgical strikes that have been proven to be effective at eliminating key terrorist leaders. And let's also conveniently forget that this type of thing has been going on for centuries, in different shapes and sizes.
|
On February 06 2013 11:50 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote: Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before. Yeah, it's obviously better to invade and destabilize an entire region at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, as opposed to precise, surgical strikes that have been proven to be effective at eliminating key terrorist leaders. And let's also conveniently forget that this type of thing has been going on for centuries, in different shapes and sizes. I am not endorsing full scale invasion at all. In fact, I am 10 times happier that Obama did not capture Osama bin Ladin by sending in 50,000 troops into Pakistan which would have resulted in mass catastrophe.
All I am doing is expressing my concern about justice in the future with the use of drones and assassinations.
|
I have no problem with people who are actively working towards mass violence against US citizens being killed. I am in favor of it, in fact, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a US citizen. Without drone strikes, it's almost certain that terrorist networks' capabilities would be greater and the odds of mass violence against westerners would be higher.
|
This has happened before. In the early 70's Nixon allowed Pinochet, and the ring of repressive Latin American Dictators who were making people dissapear in Latin America, bomb a car to kill a runaway "disappeared person." Furthermore, when Nixon's watergate scandal was uncovered, the CIA had been acting internally in the U.S.A. (that is not allowed, they are specifically overseas) to stop people that they branded as dangerous to the peace. This was hugely illegal, unethical, and when uncovered, led to the mass distrust in government that most of that generation still has to this day. In general, I'm not in favor for this, because history has shown us where this leads. This leads to people "disappearing," and less government transparency rather than more. The fact is that even though these assasinations may in fact keep us a bit more safe, I'm unsure we can trust our government only 50 years later to do what they got in trouble for doing 50 years ago. That said, they have continued to do this secretly in America forever, so I'm not surprised. Also, I hate to say this, but I doubt this is going to be the last we see of these issues, I bet there will be a lot more of these in the future.
|
On February 06 2013 09:11 Solarsail wrote: Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers.
Otherwise, there is no difference between the US and the oppressive factions it claims to be against, other than we assume Obama is a nice enough guy not to kill the wrong people.
I can see where you're coming from, but are you then saying the person voted in is a dirtbag? I always thought be promoted to a leadership position meant someone or some people see something positive in you.
On February 06 2013 09:24 wangstra wrote: That's the thing though. The administration wants to keep the "process" secret. That's why Holder came out a few months ago saying there's a difference between judicial process and due process.
The process being used here can be anything - they won't define it. Literally and I'm not being facetious, they could be doing rock, scissors, paper as Colbert put it to determine if you're "guilty".
Even if we decided that there was a process, it doesn't make it okay that only the executive branch has anything to do with it. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate that if someone accuses you being a thief, they don't get to judge you and also punish you based on their "process".
I guess so, that would leave me pretty salty about the whole affair. The principle seems wrong, but I would also have to fault 'innocent people' being in terrorism/activist hotspots, even if the legislation supporting is pretty weak. But from what everyone is saying, I agree it seems a little overzealous to say it's cool to hit US Citizen targets.
But isn't this sort of like a more direct version of PsyOps? Aren't those guys bound by some silly 'no influencing US peoples' thing, but that doesn't stop them from influencing someone else to then influence the US >_>;;;;
|
On February 06 2013 09:09 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
C'mon man... How many terrorist attacks were there on the US a year before September 11th... Zero? So that was the assumed number of genuine terrorists at the time. Then we got attacked. Just because there is no immediate evidence of terrorism doesn't mean it's not being planned.
On topic: Seems pretty messed up. People shouldn't be killing people anywhere, but it's worse imo when a leader does it to his own people. Let's see what happens.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
You really thought that this was the best article to link?
|
Most of terrorism in the US come from their own extrem right wing, not foreign countries, seems fair & logical.
|
Document or no document, of course they can kill who ever they want. I don't see how this changes anything.
|
On February 06 2013 14:37 nojok wrote: Most of terrorism in the US come from their own extrem right wing, not foreign countries, seems fair & logical.
Last i checked Obama was left wing. Nice try however.
|
Do people really think that John the grocer who moved to Saudi Arabia to be with his wife who had a sick mother is going to be a victim of a drone strike? This document is only legal justification of the assassination, but I don't think it is beyond any government to have done this in the past. In fact it might be quite common especially in the spy game. I really don't see an issue with this, and I doubt that a country's leader just says kill X and it happens. I'm sure there is a more thorough process.
|
well i m not a fan of "firststrike justice" or killing ppl with drones (actually i m against death penalty , violence leads to more violence)
but when u compare number of death caused by terrorism compared to assimilating with drones - some terrorists killed a week way more civilists kileld by terrorists ? also the us is not the only western stat what acts like this (Israel best example)
so as a german, theese days i m obviously against any kind of death penalty , but our "moral impperialism" doesnt really appeal to the rest of the world
also ist kinda funny to see this discussion right now , where ist actually allready common knowledge that the us kills terrorists with drones for years
|
On February 06 2013 15:28 eqinf wrote: well i m not a fan of "firststrike justice" or killing ppl with drones (actually i m against death penalty , violence leads to more violence)
but when u compare number of death caused by terrorism compared to assimilating with drones - 2 terrorists killed a week per ~ 50 civilians ? also the us is not the only western stat what acts like this (Israel best example)
so as a german, theese days i m obviously against any kind of death penalty , but our "moral impperialism" doesnt really appeal to the rest of the world
also ist kinda funny to see this discussion right now , where ist actually allready common knowledge that the us kills terrorists with drones for years
That is the power of the US media. Brings up a topic and instantly the sheep follow. But please, let's not act like every government doesn't have dirt similar to this. Maybe they're not drone strikes, but bullets and poison accomplish the same goal.
|
Luckily this power will never be abused. It's not like they would use it to murder a 16 year old boy or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi
don't worry though, because the Obama administration has an explanation. Apparently it's his fault for having an irresponsible father. A father who was himself murdered not for being a terrorist but rather for "provoking terrorism" i.e. the U.S. government didn't like what he had to say and they shot him for it.
|
On February 06 2013 15:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:Luckily this power will never be abused. It's not like they would use it to murder a 16 year old boy or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqidon't worry though, because the Obama administration has an explanation. Apparently it's his fault for having an irresponsible father. A father who was himself murdered not for being a terrorist but rather for "provoking terrorism" i.e. the U.S. government didn't like what he had to say and they shot him for it.
You linked an article that is about an unintended target, that gives no real information about the intended target that. And from what I read from the sources in that wikipedia article is seems like the father was a bomb maker?
|
I remember a few months back a NYTimes story that the Justice Department had started sketching rules and regulations for drone strikes due to the worry that Romney could become President.
It's stunts like that that worry me the most. Nobody knows what the hell is going on, and nobody wants anyone else to do what they're doing. Some light on the matter would be nice.
|
You linked an article that is about an unintended target, that gives no real information about the intended target that
I know this is a terrible and shocking truth I am going to impart upon you... but some times the government lies. They're not going just going to admit that they murdered a sixteen year old kid in cold blood. But two weeks after they murder his father, they accidentally murder him? And you think this is a coincidence?
|
It's mind-boggling that this is allowed. Completely flaunts the rule of law. But from someone I spoke to who was involved in the part of the UK military that deals with this type of thing, this isn't unique to the US...apparently it happens at the behest of the UK powers that be too. HOWEVER I would take anything he says with a pinch of salt as I think he likes to exaggerate.
It basically all comes down to the extreme reaction that the US had to 9/11. The USA PATRIOT act onwards...it's all just a big fuck you to the concept of the rule of law. What's really jarring is that US is SUPPOSED to be a country that's all about the rule of law. The amount of lawyers that were signers and drafters of the constitution...they all knew exactly how important the rule of law was, habeas corpus and all that jazz. And since 9/11 there has been this rapid erosion of the principles that were supposed to underpin the entire country. That, in many ways, were the point of the country being set up in the first place!!!
|
It's "really surprising" that hits must be ordered whenever you know someone is guilty but the law system is so screwed and corrupt it takes too long to use it against the mob or terrorist or whatever.Even more "surprising" that this process must be kept secret and as far away from public knowledge. Fact is,when you're surrounded by enemies, your democracy will only last as long as your determination and means are stronger than theirs in whatever they do against you, no exceptions.
|
On February 06 2013 16:24 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +You linked an article that is about an unintended target, that gives no real information about the intended target that I know this is a terrible and shocking truth I am going to impart upon you... but some times the government lies. They're not going just going to admit that they murdered a sixteen year old kid in cold blood. But two weeks after they murder his father, they accidentally murder him? And you think this is a coincidence?
You think they wasted a predator missile on a teenage boy or that they were actually attempting to kill Ibrahim al-Banna? I don't know, but what would they gain from this? They don't even use drone strike to kill individual Al-Qaeda grunts what makes this kid so special? Now for a serious question. Why was the kid who's father was a terrorist meeting with yet another terrorist on the day of the drone strike?
|
On February 06 2013 21:38 terranu1 wrote: It's "really surprising" that hits must be ordered whenever you know someone is guilty but the law system is so screwed and corrupt it takes too long to use it against the mob or terrorist or whatever.Even more "surprising" that this process must be kept secret and as far away from public knowledge. Fact is,when you're surrounded by enemies, your democracy will only last as long as your determination and means are stronger than theirs in whatever they do against you, no exceptions.
Due process is the cornerstone of society. Democracy depends on it being upheld vigilantly. The way you deal with your enemies in war is different from the way you deal with malfeasance of citizens in peace time so I understand it's complicated. But in general the point you are making is extremely dangerous and short-sighted. The right to be tried in a legal system, to face your accusations and make a defence is quintessential and has been for hundreds of years.
|
On February 06 2013 11:50 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote: Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before. Yeah, it's obviously better to invade and destabilize an entire region at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, as opposed to precise, surgical strikes that have been proven to be effective at eliminating key terrorist leaders. And let's also conveniently forget that this type of thing has been going on for centuries, in different shapes and sizes. 2% of the people killed in those "precise" and "surgical" strikes are known militants according to a published study. I'm not sure if I should trust you or Obama's security adviser as far as effectiveness goes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/07/obama-adviser-criticises-drone-policy
|
On February 06 2013 15:45 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 15:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:Luckily this power will never be abused. It's not like they would use it to murder a 16 year old boy or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqidon't worry though, because the Obama administration has an explanation. Apparently it's his fault for having an irresponsible father. A father who was himself murdered not for being a terrorist but rather for "provoking terrorism" i.e. the U.S. government didn't like what he had to say and they shot him for it. You linked an article that is about an unintended target, that gives no real information about the intended target that. And from what I read from the sources in that wikipedia article is seems like the father was a bomb maker?
The missile struck the 16 yr old kid and his friend when they were eating at a restaurant. He was definitely the intended target.
|
as foreign it feels like americans think they are at any point better then an iraqi or just anyone else on the world he should be allowed to kill his own people BEFORE be allowed to kill others ...
in fact i see more logical reasons he can kill his own country people then people from other countrys he has nothing to do with ....
|
On February 06 2013 16:24 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +You linked an article that is about an unintended target, that gives no real information about the intended target that I know this is a terrible and shocking truth I am going to impart upon you... but some times the government lies. They're not going just going to admit that they murdered a sixteen year old kid in cold blood. But two weeks after they murder his father, they accidentally murder him? And you think this is a coincidence? Please, I do not think I have met anyone (other than my buddy from Turkmenistan) who truly says anything good about their government. Most people here are not North Koreans, in fact, the mainstream thought right now is to hate the government.
Also, when Wikileaks happened, I do not think there was anyone who went "OMG!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING?? MY LIFE HAS BEEN A LIE! WHO CAN WE TRUST ANYMORE?!?!?!"
|
Meh...the threat of a global terrorist network and the response to it have been way overblown. I don't think Al-Qaeda even exists. Anyway, as a result of that we have lots of heavily armed counter-terrorists scouring the world with the military, politicians and intelligence agencies hugely invested in these operations. They need to produce results, and if their investigations were open for scrutiny and they were denied the authority to even kill a few people, they couldn't produce any results at all, would be made fun of and would lose their jobs. That's probably what this is about.
|
|
Government lying etc. might not be a surprise to anyone, but it's still not acceptable. And eliminating due process (or wait, redefining it) is also not justified, even if it might lead to some good outcomes in a number of situations, but that's not the point: even if Obama were saintly and would only use it for good (and how can we tell? everything is classified), what's to prevent another person from using it with different intentions?
|
Belgium8305 Posts
This focus on executive branch powers is, to me, certainly the most worrying aspect of the Obama Administration. What's also worrying (though perhaps to be expected) is the relative silence of Democrats on the issue. They made a lot of noise when the Bush Administration basically tried to make torture an acceptable practice, and they're being comparatively quiet now that the Obama Administration is reserving the right to bomb pretty much anyone who they deem to be a threat, pretty much anywhere on Earth.
Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message):
We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of Law
I especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English:
We've decided that we will have the right to take your life after a secret and legally unaccountable conclave of vaguely defined experts has decided that you are a member of al-Qaida or a vaguely defined associate group and that you are vaguely senior enough in said organization to be responsible for vaguely defined activities and threats that may be posed at a vaguely defined time, and that attempting to capture and try you is too much of a fucking hassle.
I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight. The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do. As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want?
|
On February 06 2013 15:13 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 14:37 nojok wrote: Most of terrorism in the US come from their own extrem right wing, not foreign countries, seems fair & logical. Last i checked Obama was left wing. Nice try however.
Didn't know nojok said anything different but you can try reading whatever you want into his comment.
|
While this particular way of wagin war (assuming there is war against terrorists) is still uncertain to me (i have not thought it through), what poses me problem is the risk of casualties among innoccent people. I for one would condemn drone EVEN if you had 1 innoccent person in 100 successful strikes. Of course, if you take it from a pure statistic, obviously its pretty good. But I am not willing to sacrifce lives like that ; I don't believe that we can discard innoccent lives like that for the greater good, assuming that is the case
|
On February 06 2013 22:56 vGl-CoW wrote:This focus on executive branch powers is, to me, certainly the most worrying aspect of the Obama Administration. What's also worrying (though perhaps to be expected) is the relative silence of Democrats on the issue. They made a lot of noise when the Bush Administration basically tried to make torture an acceptable practice, and they're being comparatively quiet now that the Obama Administration is reserving the right to bomb pretty much anyone who they deem to be a threat, pretty much anywhere on Earth. Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message): We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of LawI especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English: Show nested quote +We've decided that we will have the right to take your life after a secret and legally unaccountable conclave of vaguely defined experts has decided that you are a member of al-Qaida or a vaguely defined associate group and that you are vaguely senior enough in said organization to be responsible for vaguely defined activities and threats that may be posed at a vaguely defined time, and that attempting to capture and try you is too much of a fucking hassle. I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight. The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do. As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want?
What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes?
|
On February 06 2013 23:33 XenOmega wrote: While this particular way of wagin war (assuming there is war against terrorists) is still uncertain to me (i have not thought it through), what poses me problem is the risk of casualties among innoccent people. I for one would condemn drone EVEN if you had 1 innoccent person in 100 successful strikes. Of course, if you take it from a pure statistic, obviously its pretty good. But I am not willing to sacrifce lives like that ; I don't believe that we can discard innoccent lives like that for the greater good, assuming that is the case
What if there would be more than one innocent civilian death if we didn't do any of those 100 drone strikes, because there would be at least one terrorist attack against civilians?
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:36 Doodsmack wrote:What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes? Yes. Democratic principles are the stake in this war.
|
On February 06 2013 23:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 23:33 XenOmega wrote: While this particular way of wagin war (assuming there is war against terrorists) is still uncertain to me (i have not thought it through), what poses me problem is the risk of casualties among innoccent people. I for one would condemn drone EVEN if you had 1 innoccent person in 100 successful strikes. Of course, if you take it from a pure statistic, obviously its pretty good. But I am not willing to sacrifce lives like that ; I don't believe that we can discard innoccent lives like that for the greater good, assuming that is the case What if there would be more than one innocent civilian death if we didn't do any of those 100 drone strikes, because there would be at least one terrorist attack against civilians?
Then that civilian death would be on the terrorist and not the "good guys".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
easy to make this look bad, but i don't think the slippery slope argument holds much weight here. the administration's side is that they only act with credible information, as well as tactical necessity. i.e. not creating legal shelter for terrorists.
seems like a case of expediency and pragmatism against a theory of law that stress consistency.
|
United States40768 Posts
We have secret hearings in the UK. They get a judge in a room and he is briefed under the assumption that civil rights apply unless there are exceptional circumstances and then he makes a decision. Or at least we assume he does, but hey, at least a judge is involved. It's not that hard to attempt judicial oversight of sensitive security decisions.
|
On February 06 2013 23:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 22:56 vGl-CoW wrote:This focus on executive branch powers is, to me, certainly the most worrying aspect of the Obama Administration. What's also worrying (though perhaps to be expected) is the relative silence of Democrats on the issue. They made a lot of noise when the Bush Administration basically tried to make torture an acceptable practice, and they're being comparatively quiet now that the Obama Administration is reserving the right to bomb pretty much anyone who they deem to be a threat, pretty much anywhere on Earth. Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message): We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of LawI especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English: We've decided that we will have the right to take your life after a secret and legally unaccountable conclave of vaguely defined experts has decided that you are a member of al-Qaida or a vaguely defined associate group and that you are vaguely senior enough in said organization to be responsible for vaguely defined activities and threats that may be posed at a vaguely defined time, and that attempting to capture and try you is too much of a fucking hassle. I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight. The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do. As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want? What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes? Notice how China is not the target of terrorist attacks?
The reason for attacks by al qaeda in the 90's was because of America's interference and control over muslim nations. The more the USA attacks, the more likely people will want to take revenge. It is a natural reaction. The policies of the war on terror are an utter failure. Look at the world today and compare it with 2001. The people who want to attack America today are 10 fold greater than 10 years ago.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:01 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 23:36 Doodsmack wrote:On February 06 2013 22:56 vGl-CoW wrote:This focus on executive branch powers is, to me, certainly the most worrying aspect of the Obama Administration. What's also worrying (though perhaps to be expected) is the relative silence of Democrats on the issue. They made a lot of noise when the Bush Administration basically tried to make torture an acceptable practice, and they're being comparatively quiet now that the Obama Administration is reserving the right to bomb pretty much anyone who they deem to be a threat, pretty much anywhere on Earth. Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message): We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of LawI especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English: We've decided that we will have the right to take your life after a secret and legally unaccountable conclave of vaguely defined experts has decided that you are a member of al-Qaida or a vaguely defined associate group and that you are vaguely senior enough in said organization to be responsible for vaguely defined activities and threats that may be posed at a vaguely defined time, and that attempting to capture and try you is too much of a fucking hassle. I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight. The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do. As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want? What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes? Notice how China is not the target of terrorist attacks? The reason for attacks by al qaeda in the 90's was because of America's interference and control over muslim nations. The more the USA attacks, the more likely people will want to take revenge. It is a natural reaction. The policies of the war on terror are an utter failure. Look at the world today and compare it with 2001. The people who want to attack America today are 10 fold greater than 10 years ago. china has basically a regional revolt. of course they would not call that terrorism, but hey
|
On February 06 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote: easy to make this look bad, but i don't think the slippery slope argument holds much weight here. the administration's side is that they only act with credible information, as well as tactical necessity. i.e. not creating legal shelter for terrorists.
seems like a case of expediency and pragmatism against a theory of law that stress consistency.
How do you define terrorism though? I recall some government agency listing a bunch of groups/characteristics potentially linked with terrorism, and it listed stuff like veterans, libertarians, people opposed to the North American Union, people opposed to the federal reserve, anti-abortion activists, people who believe in the Constitution, opponents of the Federal Reserve, etc.
What if the excuse of "it was ok to kill him because he was a terrorist/supported terrorism" was abused to assassinate people with unpopular opinions? When wikileaks released a bunch of damning evidence against the government, there were calls to label it a terrorist group. What if criticizing the government/whistleblowing becomes terrorist activity?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:11 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote: easy to make this look bad, but i don't think the slippery slope argument holds much weight here. the administration's side is that they only act with credible information, as well as tactical necessity. i.e. not creating legal shelter for terrorists.
seems like a case of expediency and pragmatism against a theory of law that stress consistency. How do you define terrorism though? I recall some government agency listing a bunch of groups/characteristics potentially linked with terrorism, and it listed stuff like veterans, libertarians, people opposed to the North American Union, people opposed to the federal reserve, anti-abortion activists, people who believe in the Constitution, opponents of the Federal Reserve, etc. What if the excuse of "it was ok to kill him because he was a terrorist/supported terrorism" was abused to assassinate people with unpopular opinions? When wikileaks released a bunch of damning evidence against the government, there were calls to label it a terrorist group. What if criticizing the government/whistleblowing becomes terrorist activity? iirc, the administration's side is that they are not basing their decisions on a categorization like terrorism, but on tactical necessity and immediate impact. it's only used for high priority targets. specifically, those who carry out acts of war against the u.s. the argument is that enemy combatants, once designated, are treated under international just war law rather than american civil law.
but yea, certainly a lot of room for abuse, if bad people are in charge. but then again, when the bad people are in charge, they could create loopholes easily.
the best safeguard for the rights of citizens still comes from politics, not legal blah
|
On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote: Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
You dont think any country has had a large scale assassination campaign before? Read some history. USSR and USA have been assassinating people for most of the last century. Go back before that and the British Empire was assassinating people every damn day, is there a Caliph or Sultan not showing proper respect to the crown? Kill him and replace him. Assassinations on a large scale have been going on for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient Egyptians.
Not to mention Israel who are the most aggressive currently in this regard, they will hunt down people any where in the world, most recently (at least most recently in the news) a hotel in China.
The justification for these assassinations is that these people are committing, have committed or are planning to commit acts of war/terror against the USA and thus do not get the protection of the usual legal system. I don't personally have an opinion on this explicitly, if they assassinate without doing collateral damage, I guess I'm fine with it.
|
I hope people begin to realize the morality of our leaders. Judge them not by their words, but by their actions. If they will accept the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent women in children in Iraq, what makes you think that your life is any more valuable to them? The truth is, for the right price, these people would burn your house down with your family in it. They don't care about our lives, they don't care about our freedom, they only care about how much they can get away with, and how much wealth and power they can obtain. We mean nothing to them.
|
On February 06 2013 09:09 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
They must be doing a good job. :p
|
Zurich15227 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:23 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote: Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before. You dont think any country has had a large scale assassination campaign before? Read some history. USSR and USA have been assassinating people for most of the last century. Go back before that and the British Empire was assassinating people every damn day, is there a Caliph or Sultan not showing proper respect to the crown? Kill him and replace him. Assassinations on a large scale have been going on for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient Egyptians. Not to mention Israel who are the most aggressive currently in this regard, they will hunt down people any where in the world, most recently (at least most recently in the news) a hotel in China. The justification for these assassinations is that these people are committing, have committed or are planning to commit acts of war/terror against the USA and thus do not get the protection of the usual legal system. I don't personally have an opinion on this explicitly, if they assassinate without doing collateral damage, I guess I'm fine with it. Well, I suppose the biggest difference here is that the Cold War assassinations were extralegal, and not justified at all, whereas the drone strikes are virtually officially sanctioned policy. The US will to this day deny CIA murders 40 years ago, but will openly admit to and advertise their current drone attacks.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the central issue with the drone strike thing, as well as this assassination argument, is that the administration relies on just war theory. just war theory is pretty bullshit for obvious reasons.
war as a human activity is peculiar. it is large scale and organized, yet has a readily available conceptual container. the ease wiht which it is comprehended as a concept contrasts with the complex operation itself, so whatever moral sensibility justifying war based on that concept alone, isn't going to carry much weight.
surely, surely some intermediate solution is available but overlooked. yet just war theory encourages overlooking because it defines things in terms of a simple binary, blow shit up or do nothing.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
This scares the shit out of me.
Seriously, that is some scary shit.
|
On February 06 2013 23:55 KwarK wrote: We have secret hearings in the UK. They get a judge in a room and he is briefed under the assumption that civil rights apply unless there are exceptional circumstances and then he makes a decision. Or at least we assume he does, but hey, at least a judge is involved. It's not that hard to attempt judicial oversight of sensitive security decisions.
Although these close material proceedings hearings scare me almost as much (and they are being fought against)...at least they are attempting to involve the judiciary.
|
On February 07 2013 00:49 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 23:55 KwarK wrote: We have secret hearings in the UK. They get a judge in a room and he is briefed under the assumption that civil rights apply unless there are exceptional circumstances and then he makes a decision. Or at least we assume he does, but hey, at least a judge is involved. It's not that hard to attempt judicial oversight of sensitive security decisions. Although these close material proceedings hearings scare me almost as much (and they are being fought against)...at least they are attempting to involve the judiciary.
Fun fact about state secrets privilege in the U.S.: the Supreme Court ruling in which the court upheld the government not even letting judges review evidence in camera was for a case in 1953. The evidence that was suppressed has since been declassified, and it turns out the original ruling where the courts held up the government's right to assert the state secrets privilege was one where the government deliberately and maliciously lied about the presence of sensitive information in order to suppress evidence of their wrongdoing.
|
On February 06 2013 23:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 22:56 vGl-CoW wrote:This focus on executive branch powers is, to me, certainly the most worrying aspect of the Obama Administration. What's also worrying (though perhaps to be expected) is the relative silence of Democrats on the issue. They made a lot of noise when the Bush Administration basically tried to make torture an acceptable practice, and they're being comparatively quiet now that the Obama Administration is reserving the right to bomb pretty much anyone who they deem to be a threat, pretty much anywhere on Earth. Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message): We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of LawI especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English: We've decided that we will have the right to take your life after a secret and legally unaccountable conclave of vaguely defined experts has decided that you are a member of al-Qaida or a vaguely defined associate group and that you are vaguely senior enough in said organization to be responsible for vaguely defined activities and threats that may be posed at a vaguely defined time, and that attempting to capture and try you is too much of a fucking hassle. I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight. The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do. As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want? What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes?
Mind you that the founding fathers that are held in such a high regard in the US were straight up terrorists as well. There's never any "good guys" and "bad guys" in a war. There's winners and losers. The winner's always the good guys.
The thing with terrorism is that they're usually normal people like everyone of us, who simply snap, for instance because their girl friend got innocently killed in a drone strike. Killing civilians is probably the worst way of stopping terrorist attacks. It's the best way to fuel them rather.
|
I think the important part here is that terrorists do not belong to any country and that is why it is so difficult to wage war against them. It seems only natural that if an individual is recognized as a terrorist then it's prior citizenship is rendered irrelevant for he is committing crimes against humanity.
Do I trust that the government will use this power lawfully? No, I wouldn't put my faith in the government ever, yet in principle the idea is sound.
|
On February 07 2013 00:42 lichter wrote: This scares the shit out of me.
Seriously, that is some scary shit.
I don't understand why people are so scared of this.
The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous.
The real issue here stems of what the definition of war is. There is no due process in war. There are only dead combatants. This isn't like World War II, where the battle lines were clear, and it was obvious who we were fighting against, and who we were not.
The meta-game of warfare has shifted. Terrorists often times aren't connected with any legitimate government and don't rule over any given group of people. They are relatively small groups of radicals that operate in secrecy in across different nations seeking to use unconventional means to terrorize a nation in order to further their cause. Because they often believe their ideals are more important than their life, they become incredibly dangerous because they believe they are willing to lose everything including their life in order to advance their ideals. Thus we are faced with suicidal people intent on committing genocide. However, the rest of the world has a lot to lose, and life is indeed important. Thus combating terrorism is incredibly difficult. Waiting until the terrorists come to us, isn't an intelligent option.
If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did presented themselves to the United States before responding... ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations.
|
On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 00:42 lichter wrote: This scares the shit out of me.
Seriously, that is some scary shit. I don't understand why people are so scared of this. The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous. The real issue here stems from what kind of war we are in. There is no due process in war. There are only dead combatants. This isn't like World War II, where the battle lines were clear, and it was obvious who we were fighting against, and who we were not. The meta-game of warfare has shifted. Terrorists often times aren't connected with any legitimate government and don't rule over any given group of people. They are relatively small groups of radicals that operate in secrecy in across different nations seeking to use unconventional means to terrorize a nation in order to further their cause. Because they often believe their ideals are more important than their life, they become incredibly dangerous because they believe they are willing to lose everything including their life in order to advance their ideals. Thus we are faced with suicidal people intent on committing genocide. However, the rest of the world has a lot to lose, and life is indeed important. Thus combating terrorism is incredibly difficult. If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did damage to the United States before responding... ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations.
If the United States really considered it a war, how come we charge enemy combatants with murder for killing soldiers?
|
On February 07 2013 00:23 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote: Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before. You dont think any country has had a large scale assassination campaign before? Read some history. USSR and USA have been assassinating people for most of the last century. Go back before that and the British Empire was assassinating people every damn day, is there a Caliph or Sultan not showing proper respect to the crown? Kill him and replace him. Assassinations on a large scale have been going on for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient Egyptians. Not to mention Israel who are the most aggressive currently in this regard, they will hunt down people any where in the world, most recently (at least most recently in the news) a hotel in China. The justification for these assassinations is that these people are committing, have committed or are planning to commit acts of war/terror against the USA and thus do not get the protection of the usual legal system. I don't personally have an opinion on this explicitly, if they assassinate without doing collateral damage, I guess I'm fine with it. *Sigh* I am well aware of all that, I read all about that, from Mossad, to Condor, to CIA, but I was talking about the methods used worldwide.
|
On February 07 2013 01:48 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 00:42 lichter wrote: This scares the shit out of me.
Seriously, that is some scary shit. I don't understand why people are so scared of this. The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous. The real issue here stems from what kind of war we are in. There is no due process in war. There are only dead combatants. This isn't like World War II, where the battle lines were clear, and it was obvious who we were fighting against, and who we were not. The meta-game of warfare has shifted. Terrorists often times aren't connected with any legitimate government and don't rule over any given group of people. They are relatively small groups of radicals that operate in secrecy in across different nations seeking to use unconventional means to terrorize a nation in order to further their cause. Because they often believe their ideals are more important than their life, they become incredibly dangerous because they believe they are willing to lose everything including their life in order to advance their ideals. Thus we are faced with suicidal people intent on committing genocide. However, the rest of the world has a lot to lose, and life is indeed important. Thus combating terrorism is incredibly difficult. If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did damage to the United States before responding... ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations. If the United States really considered it a war, how come we charge enemy combatants with murder for killing soldiers?
Because the United States likes to have it's cake and eat it too. You're right, it is ridiculous, just like when the US got upset when Iraq aired videos of captured US soldiers citing the Geneva Convention, but then the US paraded around a video of Saddam Hussein when he was captured.
Honestly, it is irrelevant to this conversation. I am speaking about whether or not the President should have this right. If the President didn't have the power to stop something dangerous he believes will happen before it happens, then our ability to fight terrorists is greatly diminished.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 01:48 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 00:42 lichter wrote: This scares the shit out of me.
Seriously, that is some scary shit. I don't understand why people are so scared of this. The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous. The real issue here stems from what kind of war we are in. There is no due process in war. There are only dead combatants. This isn't like World War II, where the battle lines were clear, and it was obvious who we were fighting against, and who we were not. The meta-game of warfare has shifted. Terrorists often times aren't connected with any legitimate government and don't rule over any given group of people. They are relatively small groups of radicals that operate in secrecy in across different nations seeking to use unconventional means to terrorize a nation in order to further their cause. Because they often believe their ideals are more important than their life, they become incredibly dangerous because they believe they are willing to lose everything including their life in order to advance their ideals. Thus we are faced with suicidal people intent on committing genocide. However, the rest of the world has a lot to lose, and life is indeed important. Thus combating terrorism is incredibly difficult. If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did damage to the United States before responding... ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations. If the United States really considered it a war, how come we charge enemy combatants with murder for killing soldiers? And torture prisoners. Torturing prisoners of war is a pretty disgusting. And then we get upset when they don't treat our captured soldiers with respect. It's a pretty remarkable doublethink.
I'd be okay with a leader who got on a podium and said "The world is a complicated place, this issue is ridiculously complicated, there are no easy solutions and if my opponent thinks there is a solution and it's to bomb more brown people then he's a moron. Sometimes terrorist attacks will happen. That sucks but there's not much that can be done about it and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying."
|
On February 07 2013 01:53 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 01:48 HunterX11 wrote:On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 00:42 lichter wrote: This scares the shit out of me.
Seriously, that is some scary shit. I don't understand why people are so scared of this. The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous. The real issue here stems from what kind of war we are in. There is no due process in war. There are only dead combatants. This isn't like World War II, where the battle lines were clear, and it was obvious who we were fighting against, and who we were not. The meta-game of warfare has shifted. Terrorists often times aren't connected with any legitimate government and don't rule over any given group of people. They are relatively small groups of radicals that operate in secrecy in across different nations seeking to use unconventional means to terrorize a nation in order to further their cause. Because they often believe their ideals are more important than their life, they become incredibly dangerous because they believe they are willing to lose everything including their life in order to advance their ideals. Thus we are faced with suicidal people intent on committing genocide. However, the rest of the world has a lot to lose, and life is indeed important. Thus combating terrorism is incredibly difficult. If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did damage to the United States before responding... ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations. If the United States really considered it a war, how come we charge enemy combatants with murder for killing soldiers? Because the United States likes to have it's cake and eat it too. You're right, it is ridiculous, just like when the US got upset when Iraq aired videos of captured US soldiers citing the Geneva Convention, but then the US paraded around a video of Saddam Hussein when he was captured. Honestly, it is irrelevant to this conversation. I am speaking about whether or not the President should have this right. If the President didn't have the power to stop something dangerous he believes will happen before it happens, then our ability to fight terrorists is greatly diminished.
Obviously there has to be some tradeoff between effectively fighting terrorists and respecting human rights, and a lot of people would argue that allowing the President to unilaterally (and regularly) authorize assassinations is over the line.
|
We can all go through the history of any given nations and find hypocrisy, but that is besides the point.
Understand this, just like a how some builds in SC2 are designed to exploit a loophole or weakness in another build, people have stopped attempting to fight western powers in a conventional means, they have gone unconventional, in an attempt to exploit them. Now the western world is still trying to figure out how to stop this terrorist build without trampling the rights of people, but this power must be had, the same way that Protoss cannot open Nexus first versus someone who 6 pools.
There is no other option, unless we want to wait until the enemy strikes us to respond. And the problem there, you're responding when it is too late. The genocidal terrorists were on a suicide mission. Responding after the fact would be like sending up SCVs to repair after the Banelings have killed your Bunkers. And that is the whole issue here, 9-11 wasn't like Pearl Harbor where the Japanese then planned to follow up to defeat the United States conventionally in the end. The strike on 9-11 was the end for the terrorists.
Yes, there is potential for abuse here, but there is potential for abuse in everything. The President must have the power to stop the enemy before he strikes, whether or not the enemy be foreign or domestic.
The paper "concludes that the president has the authority to assassinate 'a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida' who 'poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US' where capture is 'infeasible.'
Again, if the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did present themselves aggressively to the United States before responding...ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations to protect the nation.
If the President didn't this power, I'd be a lot more scared.
|
Have to point a couple things out:
The government can already kill citizens legally. Examples often include the police killing suspects who are running away or threaten the life of another. Wars represent legal killing by the government. The central issue is not that the government can kill people but that it can do so on the basis that they present an "imminent threat".
The white paper tries to weaken and muddle the definition of imminent and do so on a national security basis. It's a personalized version of the basis for the Iraq War. It does not define the limits to when someone who says they hate America and want to kill Americans transitions from ugly talk to planning an act of terror, when they go from a potential threat to an imminent one.
IMO the frightful part is that President Obama gives himself the authority to exercise his own judgment to decide who is an imminent threat. And he doesn't have to justify or explain his logic to the people or to Congress.
|
I think you guys should read the memo itself.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
The conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..."
And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force.
I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans."
Read it!
Does anyone really disagree with that?
|
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that?
Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so?
And I do disagree with it. this paper also sets up the framework for establishing increased executive power that was not allowed it by congress/senate. That means that in the future it's just another step after showing that the president already has the power to kill citizens without due process to another power.
|
On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so?
It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States.
To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans."
|
On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? The executive will always be more expedient than the judicial, the idea here is preemption.
|
On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans."
It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them.
And I disagree that preemption super-cedes the need for due process.
|
On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them.
So we have two choices here. Either:
(1) We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(2) Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States.
There is no other options.
|
On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States.
That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself.
There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.
|
On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness....
We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it...
As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured.
Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process.
Read it, and think about it.
|
On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it. You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other Americans from an individual involved with Al-Qaida. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process.
First of all, that's pretty much not at all what I was saying. One of these things follows the laws that we have in this country, and the other does not. Secondly, just because the paper says that, doesn't mean that's what due process means. It's a memo written by the DoJ to justify the use of said power, not a scholarly interpretation for peer review.
And yes, I suggest lifetime judges, because when you're in a position to make determinations on nation security with sensitive security access, it would not be in the interests of justice to allow those judges to be swayed by the fact that they could be fired from the job, arrested, or anything else. There is already a precedent for lifetime appointed judges.
|
Read it, and tell me what is wrong with it's analysis of due process.
And you don't think that the government should have the power to kill US citizens who are abroad, can't be captured, and are senior Al-Qaida members who pose an imminent risk of violent attack on the US?
If you don't think the government should, then yes, we don't agree.
|
On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it. No, a US citizen who is ACCUSED of being a soldier serving blablabla.
There's a major difference between 'is' and being accused of something by the US state. I imagine the standards to be 'found' guilty are significantly lower for an individual than a country, and yet look at how Iraq turned out.
On February 07 2013 02:48 BronzeKnee wrote: Read it, and tell me what is wrong with it's analysis of due process.
And you don't think that the government should have the power to kill US citizens who are abroad, can't be captured, and are senior Al-Qaida members who pose an imminent risk of violent attack on the US?
If you don't think the government should, then yes, we don't agree. Again, there is no 'are'.
|
On February 07 2013 02:52 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it. No, a US citizen who is ACCUSED of being a soldier serving blablabla. There's a major difference between 'is' and being accused of something by the US state. I imagine the standards to be 'found' guilty are significantly lower for an individual than a country, and yet look at how Iraq turned out.
The memo doesn't say accused, it says is.
Read it: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Obviously the government can't justify going around and killing everyone it accuses of being this or that.
|
On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it.
Read it. Still don't agree. Also, seeing as how it looks like over 50% of prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay were not involved in anything that should have put them there, I don't have any faith in those officials in the know.
Edit: I'll actually tell you where I don't agree.
The paper does make a good point when it mentions that on the side of requiring due process that allowing this power would cause people to fear for the wrongful taking of their life without the chance to defend themselves. Then the paper goes on to present the weight on the other side of the scale and makes the decision that the other side is heavier, whereas I believe that it's not.
|
On February 07 2013 02:55 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it. Read it. Still don't agree. Also, seeing as how it looks like over 50% of prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay were not involved in anything that should have put them there, I don't have any faith in those officials in the know.
Let's not argue about whether or not the US with a pristine history ect... As I said, we can all go through the history of any given nations and find hypocrisy, but that is besides the point.
It is irrelevant. This discussion is about the papers, and the papers alone and whether or not it is okay for the government to kill a US citizen who they cannot capture and who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike?
|
On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike?
None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. The white papers are just saying that under those conditions if they are met, then it justifies the force. So the President better be darn sure those conditions are met.
Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days.
You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected.
|
On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected.
I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected.
|
On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
|
On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. In trouble with whom?
There is no scrutiny. You say that it isn't an accusation that they are a senior Al-Qaeda member, they only strike when they know, but there is no judicial review. It is a process in which the man who wants to do it is the same man who claims it's legal who is also the man who chooses whether or not to do it and the whole process is under a cloud of secrecy.
I don't have a problem with killing terrorists. I have a problem with a system where the guy who wants to kill another guy is also the one who gets to define whether the other guy fits the category and is also the guy who gets to decide whether to go ahead. These conditions are a nonsense.
|
On February 07 2013 03:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. In trouble with whom? There is no scrutiny. You say that it isn't an accusation that they are a senior Al-Qaeda member, they only strike when they know, but there is no judicial review. It is a process in which the man who wants to do it is the same man who claims it's legal who is also the man who chooses whether or not to do it and the whole process is under a cloud of secrecy. I don't have a problem with killing terrorists. I have a problem with a system where the guy who wants to kill another guy is also the one who gets to define whether the other guy fits the category and is also the guy who gets to decide whether to go ahead. These conditions are a nonsense.
You say things so much prettier then I can. Thank you.
|
On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens.
Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
On February 07 2013 03:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. In trouble with whom? There is no scrutiny. You say that it isn't an accusation that they are a senior Al-Qaeda member, they only strike when they know, but there is no judicial review. It is a process in which the man who wants to do it is the same man who claims it's legal who is also the man who chooses whether or not to do it and the whole process is under a cloud of secrecy. I don't have a problem with killing terrorists. I have a problem with a system where the guy who wants to kill another guy is also the one who gets to define whether the other guy fits the category and is also the guy who gets to decide whether to go ahead. These conditions are a nonsense.
Well, you have a problem with systems then. The strong nations define in the UN what nations can and cannot do in warfare, and they do in so to maximize their advantage on the battlefield. Interesting isn't it?
That is the nature of power, why we elect our leaders, and why the UN is folly.
There can be plenty of review after the what happened that can damn the President, simply put, if the President assassinates US citizens he will be held accountable. But to insert review before the strike inhibits the ability of President to protect the nation.
|
Relax guys,
You all act like the Obama Administration is doing these assassinations nonchalantly. Tossing baseball cards around and picked who dies. You really think they would be that irresponsible? I am the first to admit I did not vote for Obama, or support his policies. But at some point you have to give the man some credit. Assuming he takes this ability as anything but of the utmost seriousness is short-changing the president.
As far as the balance of power goes, the democrats will not challenge this because they don't want any bad press. The initiative is on the republicans to investigate this and see exactly what is going on (just as the democrats questioned bush on torture). To think the democrats would question a democrat president is hilarious. This is the beauty of the two party system, if one does something slightly overbearing on power the other will create a royal shitstorm. This is why threads like the "will the u.s. become totalitarian" is so far fetched. The two party system keeps that from ever happening, and the less popular third parties keep the main two parties in check.
I don't like Obama or agree with his policies. He however is my president and I respect him. He is a nice guy, and very well versed in public speaking, charm, and is very empathetic.
So, if you have a problem with this I would suggest writing a republican representative from your state letting them know that you want them to get to the bottom of this. They will love the chance to please a constituant, especially if you are left leaning.
Strangely enough I trust the government so I have no problem with this policy. I have nothing to hide, no crimes I don't want the state to find out about. As long as Obama deems the strikes make us safer, I'm A-ok with it. I have faith the system to eventually correct any overbearing of power. It is a slow process, but it is one will eventually find the correct answer.
|
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that?
Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread.
|
On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
|
On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you!
Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured.
That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
|
On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread.
Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained.
|
On February 07 2013 03:14 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread. Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained.
But there is a check and balance. If the President assassinates US citizens who don't fit following three criteria:
(1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
He will be held accountable. He can't just assassinate people for no reason.
I think we can all agree the United States is at war with Al-Qaida (as much as we can be at war with that organization), and thus these conditions should apply.
|
On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis:
does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. The actual memo justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is still being withheld by the Obama administration despite repeated attempts by Congress to obtain it.
|
On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
I read both of them. While they are interesting, they are not legally binding interpretations of the law, which is why I was unaware these powers existed, because they are not as clear and dry as an act passed specifically granting this power would be(hopefully).
|
On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
To the contrary, the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those circumstances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.
The paper quite clearly does not specify minimum requirements in the way that you are interpreting it overall.
|
On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: Show nested quote +does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces.
It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are:
(1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met!
You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly.
On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:
The actual memo justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is still being withheld by the Obama administration despite repeated attempts by Congress to obtain it.
That is a whole different story altogether and has nothing to do with what the papers are saying.
|
Uh, no. Re-read the first sentence of the white paper:
This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen...
|
On February 07 2013 03:26 coverpunch wrote:Uh, no. Re-read the first sentence of the white paper: Show nested quote +This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen...
Please, quote the whole sentence...
This is gold right here, wait for it! I'm waiting for the GG...
You guys need to actually read what it says. If you read the whole first paragraph you'll understand it pretty clearly.
For anyone wondering what it says, read it here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote: [quote] And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society.
|
On February 07 2013 03:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:26 coverpunch wrote:Uh, no. Re-read the first sentence of the white paper: This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen... Please, quote the whole sentence... This is gold right here, wait for it! I'm waiting for the GG... You guys need to actually read what it says. If you read the whole first paragraph you'll understand it pretty clearly. For anyone wondering what it says, read it here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf What I'm getting at is that this does NOT scrutinize the legality of executive branch actions. It's a starting point for creating a framework to target US citizens for lethal action. I agree with you that this isn't a slippery slope to the president killing anyone he wants. But it is an attempt to loosen the definitions so that US citizenship isn't a shield against actions the president would authorize against non-citizens.
|
I'll fill finish the sentence for you:
This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force of al-Qaida... that is a leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.
Pretty convenient you left that out huh? That you stopped at US citizen...
"The conclusion is reached with the recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al-Qaida members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful"
This is not an attempt to "loosen the definitions so that US citizenship isn't a shield against actions the president would authorize against non-citizens."
The papers state that if you happen to be a US citizen who is a senior operational al-Qaida member who is actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, we can kill you if we can't capture you to prevent you from killing other Americans.
I feel safer with this, that without it.
|
On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble.
Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days.
You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Obama has never claimed to be a military expert, so to assume that he is making these decisions by himself is to literally assume the worst in him. Granted, sometimes this can be a useful exercise, but in this case, I do not think Obama has given anyone any reason to legitimately think that he is willy-nilly having US citizens killed on some whim or uninformed personal opinion. I am personally not very comfortable with the current set up, and now that drone strikes are commonplace, it would behoove our government to set up a system with a little more rigor. But, taking into account the partisan politics that would be necessarily involved in setting up a drone strike panel or council, I think what we have will have to do for now.
|
But you're stretching it out much farther by saying things like:
Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. This is categorically untrue and the white paper doesn't purport to say anything like that.
|
On February 07 2013 03:36 coverpunch wrote:But you're stretching it out much farther by saying things like: Show nested quote +Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process.
That was just an analogy I used to make it more clear to people why due process could be denied, but it is one that would lead people to thinking that this is a slippery slope, my mistake. However, you're taking it out of context too. That was not my intention when I said it. Let's forget it.
Focus instead on what the papers said.
|
OK, well, we do agree on these points that the OP (i.e. the Guardian) is misreading:
-this only applies to lethal action against US citizens, not assassinating "anybody" -it applies restrictions to killing US citizens only if they are a material part of Al Qaeda, present an imminent threat, and can't be captured
And in fact, if you've been following the Obama administration's position on drone strikes, this isn't particularly surprising or new. There are issues to have with the position (i.e. what is an imminent threat, can anyone sue the administration for being wrong), but a lot of the posts here are claiming implications that simply don't happen.
|
On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble.
Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days.
You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society.
Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare.
And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers from a hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.
That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists.
The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole in a very limited manner (ie one must be a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured).
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Obama has never claimed to be a military expert, so to assume that he is making these decisions by himself is to literally assume the worst in him. Granted, sometimes this can be a useful exercise, but in this case, I do not think Obama has given anyone any reason to legitimately think that he is willy-nilly having US citizens killed on some whim or uninformed personal opinion. I am personally not very comfortable with the current set up, and now that drone strikes are commonplace, it would behoove our government to set up a system with a little more rigor. But, taking into account the partisan politics that would be necessarily involved in setting up a drone strike panel or council, I think what we have will have to do for now. I didn't mean to imply that Obama was personally staking out the targets and then deciding to kill them himself. Obviously he will be acting upon recommendations from his intelligence agencies but that just makes the safeguard the integrity, competence and ability to present a balanced case for and against by them. Safeguards that consist entirely of the good judgement of an elite were discarded when we left feudalism in favour of the universal rights of man. I doubt feudalism actively strove to be corrupt, unfair and incompetent with its administering of justice but men are not infallible and a system that recognised that and strived to defend the people replaced it.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers from a hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. Also saying it's okay for the executive to define anyone they wish as an enemy of the state and summarily execute them (as long as they first define them as meeting the criteria which they also set and then prove it to themselves using evidence only they can see) because of the declaration of a universal warzone and an indefinite state of emergency somewhat misses the point. Shouldn't the onus be on the government to explain why it is that they are seizing emergency powers to suspend the basic rights of citizens rather than saying "it's okay, we have emergency powers so it's fine because we're at war (with everyone)".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when you say the 5th amendment is superceded, that's going to make waves regardless of the situation. some of you are acting like just by saying that the 5th amendment is superceded, it is. the aclu has an active case on this before the SCOTUS i think
|
I'm glad the Obama Administration has decided to play the game of charades and act like war is not-war to satisfy all the people who think war is not-war, while still waging war and not not-war.
The other side is waging war, why are we waging not-war again? To satisfy some constitutional law professor at NYU or Berkeley who thinks the constitution should be scrapped, except when it's convenient to act like a defender of the constitution?
You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers.
Not-war must be so difficult. War is a lot easier. See, when you're in the field and fighting a war, you don't get to have a trial to prove that you're in the field fighting a war before the other side can kill you, they can just kill you. That's war.
Not-war, on the other hand, is the clusterfuck we see happening now.
|
On February 07 2013 03:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:36 farvacola wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Obama has never claimed to be a military expert, so to assume that he is making these decisions by himself is to literally assume the worst in him. Granted, sometimes this can be a useful exercise, but in this case, I do not think Obama has given anyone any reason to legitimately think that he is willy-nilly having US citizens killed on some whim or uninformed personal opinion. I am personally not very comfortable with the current set up, and now that drone strikes are commonplace, it would behoove our government to set up a system with a little more rigor. But, taking into account the partisan politics that would be necessarily involved in setting up a drone strike panel or council, I think what we have will have to do for now. I didn't mean to imply that Obama was personally staking out the targets and then deciding to kill them himself. Obviously he will be acting upon recommendations from his intelligence agencies but that just makes the safeguard the integrity, competence and ability to present a balanced case for and against by them. Safeguards that consist entirely of the good judgement of an elite were discarded when we left feudalism in favour of the universal rights of man. I doubt feudalism actively strove to be corrupt, unfair and incompetent with its administering of justice but men are not infallible and a system that recognised that and strived to defend the people replaced it. Actually, this is one of the muddled areas where it's not clear what the administration is doing. Initially, President Obama was quite proud of the fact that he personally authorizes every hit and monitors the kill list. Only after accusations that this makes him look like a Roman emperor did he back down and start to insist that there's some process in place.
I think you might stress that Obama sincerely believes every hit improves the security of the United States and that he has good reason to believe he has prevented terrorist attacks. But there is certainly a problem with the process and its transparency. In particular, there doesn't seem to be a case where the CIA says "this is a bad man and we've got a drone on him" and somehow Obama stops himself from authorizing the strike.
|
On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers.
You're blurring lines again.
As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them.
We don't and shouldn't need to find every member of al-Qaida who is a US citizen guilty before killing them. Just as the North didn't have to find every rebel soldier guilty of treason before killing them on the battlefield in the Civil War. The North didn't have to wait to be fired on in every battle to return fire...
We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered.
|
Whats interesting when they count numbers of 'militants' is any male aged over 16 is counted as a militant unless he can be 100% proved as innocent. When the people being attacked are poor villagers it doesn't happen.
link
There have been multiple incidents of attacking rescuers or people at funerals, link2and claim by some people that many of the CIA targeters on the ground who are locals where simply pocketing money given to them by handlers and identifying seemingly random targets or rivals in other clans etc. A Stanford and New York university law societies estimate that in all likelihood for every 100 people killed by drone strikes 2 are miltants. link3
Heres the mentality of some of the drone operators. This was published in a german newspaper who were with some drone operators.
Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.
"Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.
"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.
"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.
Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.
link4 Not that they did it deliberately. But when your judge, jury and executioner it doesn't matter.
|
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
Does anyone really disagree with that?
Do you not understand that condition 2 and condition 3 are completely contradictory? How can capture be infeasible and violent attack be imminent? To attack the United States the terrorists have to come here. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. Those that perpetrated 9/11 came to the US. The underwear bomber came to the US. Any way you slice it they have to come here, and by coming here it makes capture completely feasible.
I don't care about some idiot in the desert making plans because we are capable of capturing his henchmen ad inifinitum with our new found post-911 awareness about terrorism. Do you really think we would have gone after bin Laden with such vim had we foiled 9/11?
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists.
|
On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists.
Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part.
|
On February 07 2013 03:58 Brobe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
Does anyone really disagree with that? Do you not understand that condition 2 and condition 3 are completely contradictory? How can capture be infeasible and violent attack be imminent? To attack the United States the terrorists have to come here. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. Those that perpetrated 9/11 came to the US. The underwear bomber came to the US. Any way you slice it they have to come here, and by coming here it makes capture completely feasible. I don't care about some idiot in the desert making plans because we are capable of capturing his henchmen ad inifinitum with our new found post-911 awareness about terrorism. Do you really think we would have gone after bin Laden with such vim had we foiled 9/11? The United States=/= the continental US and Hawaii. It also includes US interests, allies, and personnel abroad.
|
On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists.
Ok, so if a US citizen is al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, we should not assassinate them without first the court finding them guilty?
Or, are you arguing that the government needs to first prove they are al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States in court?
|
On February 07 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:58 Brobe wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
Does anyone really disagree with that? Do you not understand that condition 2 and condition 3 are completely contradictory? How can capture be infeasible and violent attack be imminent? To attack the United States the terrorists have to come here. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. Those that perpetrated 9/11 came to the US. The underwear bomber came to the US. Any way you slice it they have to come here, and by coming here it makes capture completely feasible. I don't care about some idiot in the desert making plans because we are capable of capturing his henchmen ad inifinitum with our new found post-911 awareness about terrorism. Do you really think we would have gone after bin Laden with such vim had we foiled 9/11? The United States=/= the continental US and Hawaii. It also includes US interests, allies, and personnel abroad.
What are those?
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. Why on earth do you consider this a war, other than the declaration of a war on terror. How does it in any way resemble a war? Who are you fighting? What is the sphere? What is the goal? When will you know you've won? How will you achieve it?
It's not a war and I'm amazed that you, with your right wing small government ideology, are going along with this. It's the declaration of an ongoing universal state of emergency because of a cardboard cutout demon.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:02 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Ok, so if a US citizen is al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, we should not assassinate them without first the court finding them guilty? Or, are you arguing that the government needs to first prove they are al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States in court? Would it be so hard to try them in a closed hearing without their presence before bombing the shit out of them? It wouldn't be justice but it'd be a lot, lot better than this. That's what we do with terror suspects in the UK.
Also I think you hugely overestimate the damage a terrorist can do to the US and undervalue the system itself. The principles at stake are worth more than the lives of the people who died in 9/11. 3000 people is really not very many at all, whereas democratic principles were valued highly enough to justify the hundreds of thousands of casualties in WWII. Do you not see a contradiction there?
|
It's amazing how people talk about a narrow scope how these powers should or should not be used here and now and not think about the implication of giving away such wide reaching powers.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
America is no longer deserving.
|
On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. How does it in any way resemble a war?
You see Kwark, and I partially can't believe I am saying this, what your saying is exactly what the terrorists want.
They have changed the meta-game in warfare, and you're asking us to rely on the same old ways, not to update our laws to meet the current circumstance and challenges. Basically, the terrorists are 6 pooling, and you're demanding we open Nexus first, because that is what we've always done, and because we aren't really facing a threat. But we are.
The problem is that 6 pooling hard counters the Nexus first, just like due process can protect an al-Qaida senior member who can't be captured reasonably and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States who happens to be a US citizen.
On February 07 2013 04:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Ok, so if a US citizen is al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, we should not assassinate them without first the court finding them guilty? Or, are you arguing that the government needs to first prove they are al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States in court? Would it be so hard to try them in a closed hearing without their presence before bombing the shit out of them? It wouldn't be justice but it'd be a lot, lot better than this. That's what we do with terror suspects in the UK. Also I think you hugely overestimate the damage a terrorist can do to the US and undervalue the system itself. The principles at stake are worth more than the lives of the people who died in 9/11. 3000 people is really not very many at all, whereas democratic principles were valued highly enough to justify the hundreds of thousands of casualties in WWII. Do you not see a contradiction there?
If it means that it inhibits the ability of the President to defend America, then absolutely.
And I don't want to argue about how much damage a terrorist can do. Democratic principles were not the reason to justify the casualties in WWII, ask Poland how that turned out... the casualties for justified for other reasons. But that is all besides the point.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote: [quote] You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis:
[quote] It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. How does it in any way resemble a war? You see Kwark, and I partially can't believe I am saying this, what your saying is exactly what the terrorists want. They have changed the meta-game in warfare, and you're asking us to rely on the same old ways, not to update our laws to meet the current circumstance and challenges. Basically, the terrorists are 6 pooling, and you're demanding we open Nexus first, because that is what we've always done, and because we aren't really facing a threat. But we are. The problem is that 6 pooling hard counters the Nexus first, just like due process can protect an al-Qaida senior member who can't be captured reasonably and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States who happens to be a US citizen. We're starting with about 19 mining bases and they have two drones, I don't mind if they kill a few probes before our first zealot pops out because we still have 19 bases. Scrapping most of them to rush out a cannon leaves you with fewer minerals then the loss of the probes.
|
Would it be so hard to try them in a closed hearing without their presence before bombing the shit out of them? It wouldn't be justice but it'd be a lot, lot better than this. That's what we do with terror suspects in the UK.
Also I think you hugely overestimate the damage a terrorist can do to the US and undervalue the system itself. The principles at stake are worth more than the lives of the people who died in 9/11. 3000 people is really not very many at all, whereas democratic principles were valued highly enough to justify the hundreds of thousands of casualties in WWII. Do you not see a contradiction there?
If it means that it inhibits the ability of the President to defend America, then absolutely.
And I don't want to argue about how much damage a terrorist can do. Democratic principles were not the reason to justify the casualties in WWII, ask Poland how that turned out... the casualties for justified for other reasons. But that is all besides the point.
|
On February 07 2013 04:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are:
(1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met!
You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. How does it in any way resemble a war? You see Kwark, and I partially can't believe I am saying this, what your saying is exactly what the terrorists want. They have changed the meta-game in warfare, and you're asking us to rely on the same old ways, not to update our laws to meet the current circumstance and challenges. Basically, the terrorists are 6 pooling, and you're demanding we open Nexus first, because that is what we've always done, and because we aren't really facing a threat. But we are. The problem is that 6 pooling hard counters the Nexus first, just like due process can protect an al-Qaida senior member who can't be captured reasonably and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States who happens to be a US citizen. We're starting with about 19 mining bases and they have two drones, I don't mind if they kill a few probes before our first zealot pops out because we still have 19 bases. Scrapping most of them to rush out a cannon leaves you with fewer minerals then the loss of the probes.
Nah, it is more like we start with 19 mining bases and they have a huge supply of Baneling creators hiding around a huge map, and they send Banelings at us.
One of those Baneling creators (which is know is an enemy Baneling creator) happens to be a Protoss citizen, and thus, we can't kill it until it actually does damage to us, or until a committee reviews whether or not it is an enemy... sounds dumb eh?
Anyway, my whole point with that analogy is that you can't let terrorists use due process to help them achieve their goals. It makes no sense, and you still haven't take on that point.
|
On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. Why on earth do you consider this a war, other than the declaration of a war on terror. How does it in any way resemble a war? Who are you fighting? What is the sphere? What is the goal? When will you know you've won? How will you achieve it? It's not a war and I'm amazed that you, with your right wing small government ideology, are going along with this. It's the declaration of an ongoing universal state of emergency because of a cardboard cutout demon.
Why would I consider it a war?
I consider flying planes into buildings to be an act of war.
I consider blowing up embassies to be acts of war.
I consider open hostilities between organized groups to be a war.
How does it resemble a war? Hmmm. Gunfire, explosives, mortars, artillery, mines, bazookas, helicopters, aircraft, all being used to kill people on their side who use gunfire, mortars, explosives, bazookas, SAMs, mines to kill people on our side. That seems rather... warlike.
Who are we fighting? Muslims who blow stuff up because Allah said so.
What is the sphere? The globe.
What is the goal? To physically and psychologically crush them, just like the goal in any war.
When will we know we've won? When Muslims blow stuff up a lot less frequently than they do now. They already do it a lot less frequently than they did just a few years ago, so I guess a war on a word isn't all that Don Quixote after all, is it? All those clever morons saying you can't fight a war on a word, with their heads up their asses smelling their own farts and jerking each other off about how smart they are and how dumb those neanderthals trying to fight a word are. I guess in the real world, terrorism isn't a word, it's a behavior by people, and if you stop the people, preferably with a Hellfire missile, you stop the behavior.
How will we achieve it? By killing them or making them give in to despair. You know, the main way to achieve your objectives in war. Incapacitate them physically through death or injury or psychologically by making them think they can't win and fighting on will only result in more destruction of their own than they can bear.
It is a war, and you're a fool for saying it isn't. All your questions are mostly irrelevant anyway; two sides are engaging in open hostilities using weapons of war, that's a war.
No matter how much you don't like it.
I don't see the US in a state of emergency, do you? It's their countries that are in states of emergency.
Just the way you want it for your side. In a war. Like the one we're in.
It's amazing how people talk about a narrow scope how these powers should or should not be used here and now and not think about the implication of giving away such wide reaching powers.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
America is no longer deserving.
You mean the powers that America has used for over 200 years without turning authoritarian or worse? America is not deserving? We've shown over a dozen times that we damn well are.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote: [quote] You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis:
[quote] It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. Why on earth do you consider this a war, other than the declaration of a war on terror. How does it in any way resemble a war? Who are you fighting? What is the sphere? What is the goal? When will you know you've won? How will you achieve it? It's not a war and I'm amazed that you, with your right wing small government ideology, are going along with this. It's the declaration of an ongoing universal state of emergency because of a cardboard cutout demon. Why would I consider it a war? I consider flying planes into buildings to be an act of war.I consider blowing up embassies to be acts of war.I consider open hostilities between organized groups to be a war.How does it resemble a war? Hmmm. Gunfire, explosives, mortars, artillery, mines, bazookas, helicopters, aircraft, all being used to kill people who use gunfire, mortars, explosives, mines to kill people on our side. That seems rather... warlike. Who are we fighting? Muslims who blow stuff up because Allah said so. What is the sphere? The globe. What is the goal? To physically and psychologically crush them, just like the goal in any war. When will we know we've won? When Muslims blow stuff up a lot less frequently than they do now. How will we achieve it? By killing them or making them give in to despair. You know, the main way to achieve your objectives in war. Incapacitate them physically through death or injury or psychologically by making them think they can't win and fighting on will only result in more destruction of their own than they can bear. It is a war, and you're a fool for saying it isn't. All your questions are mostly irrelevant anyway; two sides are engaging in open hostilities using weapons of war, that's a war. No matter how much you don't like it. I don't see the US in a state of emergency, do you? It's their countries that are in states of emergency. Just the way you want it for your side. In a war. Like the one we're in. Show nested quote + It's amazing how people talk about a narrow scope how these powers should or should not be used here and now and not think about the implication of giving away such wide reaching powers.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
America is no longer deserving.
You mean the powers that America has used for over 200 years without turning authoritarian or worse? America is not deserving? We've shown over a dozen times that we damn well are. Sigh.
You don't think the executive has expanded its powers to deal with the perpetual state of war which it has defined itself as being in? You don't think declaring that there is an indefinite war against a vaguely defined idea amounts to a declaration of a state of emergency?
Some guys flew some planes some buildings. It was shitty. Fortunately the guys who flew the planes died on the planes and the guy who was behind it was executed after admitting his guilt. Good job. But it's no war, no more than the war on drugs or, for that matter, the perceived war on Christianity. The only reason bits of it resemble a war is because after declaring war on terror the US followed it with declaring war on some other countries, some, like Afghanistan, being related and some, like Iraq and (well not declaring war on Libya) being in no way related.
Declaring that there is an ongoing war on terror and then declaring war on some actual places afterwards doesn't mean you're fighting a war on terror, it means you're fighting a war against some actual places at some point after you declared a war on terror.
|
On February 07 2013 03:19 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:14 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread. Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained. But there is a check and balance. If the President assassinates US citizens who don't fit following three criteria: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.He will be held accountable. He can't just assassinate people for no reason. I think we can all agree the United States is at war with Al-Qaida (as much as we can be at war with that organization), and thus these conditions should apply.
The memo states that, "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." So basically, the same kind of imminent threat that Iraq was to America.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2013 05:01 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:19 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..." (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread. Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained. But there is a check and balance. If the President assassinates US citizens who don't fit following three criteria: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.He will be held accountable. He can't just assassinate people for no reason. I think we can all agree the United States is at war with Al-Qaida (as much as we can be at war with that organization), and thus these conditions should apply. The memo states that, "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." So basically, the same kind of imminent threat that Iraq was to America. i think the standard is higher and the situation is different. the memo is designed to address individual tactical operations, not broad acts of war (though the drone war is certainly already overreached here)
making this distinction more prominent could limit stuff like drones while still preserving intelligence operation assassinations on high priority targets.
|
On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part.
We're not fighting a tangible governed state. We're fighting a criminal organization that operates outside of the U.S. in a hostile region. This is unlike any 'war' in the history of war. Regardless of that, there are international laws that protect enemy combatants -- both written and spoken that have protected enemies in the history of war for centuries. If hitler had been caught alive by the allies in WWII he'd have been tried and receive the same death sentence every other war criminal had before him. In 1770, British soldiers fired upon an American crowd. Rather than immediately hang them as the despised enemies of the colonists, they were given a trial, found innocent and acquitted -- a demonstration of American rule of law prevailing above all else. Treatment of "terrorists" among many other recent historical enemies have been a gross perversion of American integrity.
|
Well, I'll be damned... something that Kwark and I agree on. If the President authorizing himself to drone strike anyone that he suspects of being a bad guy isn't a sign of the apocalypse, such an heretofore unimaginable alignment definitely is.
|
On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc...
I get what you mean. But proving the intentions of terrorists are a hard thing to prove. I honestly dont mind this at all. I can see that it can get misused. But most likely, the people getting drone bombed have had serious intentions, and connections to terrorists.
Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery.
|
It's chilling to think about how something like this could potentially be used, but I have faith our government will use it only to get done what has to be done for the greater good.
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic.
|
On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic.
And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨
I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial.
|
To be truthful, this is the single most difficult component of Obama's presidency to defend from the standpoint of a pragmatic liberal (though the War on Drugs is a close second), and in the end my defense of it ends up consisting almost entirely of a nod towards the political reality of the United States. I find this much power in the hands of one person troubling, but I also consider Obama the best possible current leader given a "realistic" assessment of the potential for progress. I think these drone strikes have likely eliminated some terrible bad guys but also killed a fair number of innocents, and am unsure as to how to effectively measure their efficacy against the threat this sort of line stepping presents to the United States at large. I personally think Obama weighs these very things in his head as well, and I am inclined to fault him for his submission far before I am his war hawkery, and I genuinely think that the majority of drone strikes have been performed in good faith and to good effect, contrary to what the Pakistani people amongst others have to say. Collateral damage weighs heavily on the mind of anyone with a regard for human life, so I'd really like to see a bit of transparency at some point so that it becomes possible to effectively determine whether or not these strikes are worth their cost from a public perspective; I do not exactly consider what little journalism there is on the subject enough to make an informed judgement. It also bears worth mentioning that the path to transparency for this sort of thing must pass through partisan lands, lands that might not prove expediently navigable.
|
On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial.
They killed the 16 year old son of a terrorist father in an attack separate from the killing of his father. With the justification that he COULD have been planning a terrorist plot against the united states. It's a scary precedent.
|
United States5162 Posts
On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. And that's just fucking scary. If they don't get a fair trial then you have no proof that they actually did what you accuse them of. And if it's so overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty, then there should be no problem with a quick trial that confirms all that.
|
On February 07 2013 07:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. And that's just fucking scary. If they don't get a fair trial then you have no proof that they actually did what you accuse them of. And if it's so overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty, then there should be no problem with a quick trial that confirms all that. That's not how it works unfortunately. I'm not saying I think forgoing a trial is a good idea, but any sort of judicial process would certainly take a noteworthy amount of time. And the creation of or extension of any sort of judicial panel to review drone strikes would almost certainly require congressional approval, and therefore the entire thing becomes even more complicated.
|
On February 07 2013 07:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:15 Myles wrote:On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. And that's just fucking scary. If they don't get a fair trial then you have no proof that they actually did what you accuse them of. And if it's so overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty, then there should be no problem with a quick trial that confirms all that. That's not how it works unfortunately. I'm not saying I think forgoing a trial is a good idea, but any sort of judicial process would certainly take a noteworthy amount of time. And the creation of or extension of any sort of judicial panel to review drone strikes would almost certainly require congressional approval, and therefore the entire thing becomes even more complicated. There was a judicial process started by al-Awlakis father that ran for years to get info on whether his son was an assassination target of the US or not. Then it was obvious. Then his 16 year old grandson was assassinated as well.
Is that a "noteworthy amount of time"?
|
United States5162 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:15 Myles wrote:On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. And that's just fucking scary. If they don't get a fair trial then you have no proof that they actually did what you accuse them of. And if it's so overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty, then there should be no problem with a quick trial that confirms all that. That's not how it works unfortunately. I'm not saying I think forgoing a trial is a good idea, but any sort of judicial process would certainly take a noteworthy amount of time. And the creation of or extension of any sort of judicial panel to review drone strikes would almost certainly require congressional approval, and therefore the entire thing becomes even more complicated. I don't disagree, and wasn't really talking about terrorists specifically, more the general notion that if you do(more specifically, accused) something absolutely heinous that you don't need a fair trial. And quick vs noteworthy comes down to personal definition really, but if they are so overwhelmingly guilty than I wouldn't think it'd be any longer than the Nuremberg Trials.
Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo.
|
On February 07 2013 07:38 Myles wrote: Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions.
Things would also change if someone else kills an American with a drone.
|
On February 07 2013 07:43 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:38 Myles wrote: Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions. hasnt obama killed more people by drone attacks than bush?
edit: yep
Although the pace of strikes has slowed considerably this year, CIA attacks have struck Pakistan’s tribal areas on average once every five days during Obama’s first term – six times more than under George W Bush. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/03/the-reaper-presidency-obamas-300th-drone-strike-in-pakistan/
|
On February 07 2013 07:36 pettter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:20 farvacola wrote:On February 07 2013 07:15 Myles wrote:On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. And that's just fucking scary. If they don't get a fair trial then you have no proof that they actually did what you accuse them of. And if it's so overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty, then there should be no problem with a quick trial that confirms all that. That's not how it works unfortunately. I'm not saying I think forgoing a trial is a good idea, but any sort of judicial process would certainly take a noteworthy amount of time. And the creation of or extension of any sort of judicial panel to review drone strikes would almost certainly require congressional approval, and therefore the entire thing becomes even more complicated. There was a judicial process started by al-Awlakis father that ran for years to get info on whether his son was an assassination target of the US or not. Then it was obvious. Then his 16 year old grandson was assassinated as well. Is that a "noteworthy amount of time"? I've already said that with the current set up, bad intelligence will almost certainly result in collateral damage. Someone in the US intelligence community likely improperly communicated to his/her superior that the grandson was beginning terrorist activities. These sorts of situations are why I think we need more transparency, so that we can see enough success to warrant this sort of meaningless death.
|
On February 07 2013 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:43 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 07:38 Myles wrote: Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions. hasnt obama killed more people by drone attacks than bush? 5x more, at last count.
EDIT: in fairness, a lot of the increase is both technological improvements and the realization that the public doesn't just think drones are legal, they're quite comfortable with drones killing terrorists.
|
On February 07 2013 07:46 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 07 2013 07:43 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 07:38 Myles wrote: Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions. hasnt obama killed more people by drone attacks than bush? 5x more, at last count. EDIT: in fairness, a lot of the increase is both technological improvements and the realization that the public doesn't just think drones are legal, they're quite comfortable with drones killing terrorists. How many people does that come to?
|
Source
Using the most pessimistic estimates:
Drone strikes under Bush killed about 500 people. Drones under Obama are at about 2700, with 37-44 already killed in 2013.
|
On February 07 2013 07:50 coverpunch wrote:SourceDrone strikes under Bush killed about 500 people. Drones under Obama are at about 2700, with 37-44 already killed in 2013. Thanks. Now if we are to look at that 2700 number, replete with collateral damage, unintended victims and successful hits, in addition to Obama's handling of military conflicts at large (specifically in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya), is there enough significance to merit a difference in comparison to Bush?
|
There are comparisons to make with Bush but I don't know how helpful that is to the discussion at large. The best political point IMO is that Obama has certainly not been "soft on terror" and that criticism has evaporated.
At the risk of pushing the discussion away from the OP, I'd say the Obama Doctrine has been a compromise between Bush and Clinton. Obama doesn't risk ground troops and hasn't committed the US to expensive new occupations, but he is still actively nation-building and relentlessly pursuing Al Qaeda to every dirty corner of the Earth.
|
On February 07 2013 08:07 coverpunch wrote: There are comparisons to make with Bush but I don't know how helpful that is to the discussion at large. The best political point IMO is that Obama has certainly not been "soft on terror" and that criticism has evaporated.
At the risk of pushing the discussion away from the OP, I'd say the Obama Doctrine has been a compromise between Bush and Clinton. Obama doesn't risk ground troops and hasn't committed the US to expensive new occupations, but he is still actively nation-building and relentlessly pursuing Al Qaeda to every dirty corner of the Earth.
I agree, though I think one can make the case that Obama, former Secretary of State Clinton, and his JCS practiced and are practicing a different sort of nation-building than the one put into action by Bush.
Ultimately, I'm not sure you are entirely right in predicting that a shift in drone strike policy need come from a Republican, but at this point such an estimate amounts to fortune telling. I'll be very curious to see how Kerry changes things up.
|
Well, it just comes from the opinion that the anti-war left has been VERY quiet for Obama. When a Republican wins, they won't be quiet any more.
It's true that a shift could come if there are revelations that drones have been killing a lot more civilians than the administration has let on, particularly if the administration has been making errors that they know about but don't care enough to fix. But I think Obama is politically good enough to keep it under wraps until 2016.
|
God knows Joe keeps reminding him.
|
On February 07 2013 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:43 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 07:38 Myles wrote: Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions. hasnt obama killed more people by drone attacks than bush? edit: yep Show nested quote +Although the pace of strikes has slowed considerably this year, CIA attacks have struck Pakistan’s tribal areas on average once every five days during Obama’s first term – six times more than under George W Bush. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/03/the-reaper-presidency-obamas-300th-drone-strike-in-pakistan/ But if you consider the numbers, there have been more reported collateral damages during the bush administration compared to the obama administration.
13% civilians 2.9% children compared to 41.5% civilians and 25.5% children.
So the quote about using the drone strikes responsibly just under the numbers does makes some sense. Do the targets represent a real threat? I can't say. You also have to think about the number of deaths during the first part of the war during bush, in direct combat, compared to now with the drone strikes. I don't assume I know everything about everything, but I trust Obama more than I trust Bush on that account.
|
On February 07 2013 10:30 TheStonerer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 07 2013 07:43 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 07:38 Myles wrote: Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions. hasnt obama killed more people by drone attacks than bush? edit: yep Although the pace of strikes has slowed considerably this year, CIA attacks have struck Pakistan’s tribal areas on average once every five days during Obama’s first term – six times more than under George W Bush. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/03/the-reaper-presidency-obamas-300th-drone-strike-in-pakistan/ But if you consider the numbers, there have been more reported collateral damages during the bush administration compared to the obama administration. 13% civilians 2.9% children compared to 41.5% civilians and 25.5% children. So the quote about using the drone strikes responsibly just under the numbers does makes some sense. Do the targets represent a real threat? I can't say. You also have to think about the number of deaths during the first part of the war during bush, in direct combat, compared to now with the drone strikes. I don't assume I know everything about everything, but I trust Obama more than I trust Bush on that account. Reported numbers are ridiculous under the Obama administration. They consider anybody who isn't a child or a woman a militant when its far from the case. Even the rescuers whom they also kill with their double tap drone program are considered "militants".
|
It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. while the policy pretty much gives our government the right to kill anyone it seems fit I think till it is shown they preformed a drone strike where the actual target was something other then a terrorist then I am for it. Remember that we are fighting a war against organazations who support suicide bombings, use of human shields, and beheadings of captured civilians and they are spread out in about a dozen countires and only in Afghanistan do we have the ability to use ground troops.
Edit: For those of you arguing bush/Obama, realize that this is one area they are both on the same page. The drone strike program began under bush and Obama has expanded after seeing its sucess along with new advances in capabiltys and long flight times
|
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote: It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. No, in war you're just allowed to do flat out unethical things such as mass murder of civilians because it is sometimes the only way to compel the opposing state to submit. For example the allied bombing campaign of Nazi Germany was, in part, intended to be so horrific that Germany would capitulate to make it end (in fact it was so horrific that the British public insisted it end). But in that case your targets are complicit actors of the state with which you are at war and there is a clear party from which you can compel surrender, it is one state at war with another. The war on terror claims to be such a war and therefore have the moral authority to act unethically (things don't become more ethical during war, they just become more tolerable) but it is not a war in any real sense and the application of the same rules to the war on terror does not reasonably follow. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied.
|
On February 07 2013 06:51 Xahhk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. They killed the 16 year old son of a terrorist father in an attack separate from the killing of his father. With the justification that he COULD have been planning a terrorist plot against the united states. It's a scary precedent.
Surely they have more information then that. You make it sound like they just randomly decided to kill him because he possibly could be plotting a terrorist attack. I don't think the government works like that.
|
On February 08 2013 00:51 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 06:51 Xahhk wrote:On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. They killed the 16 year old son of a terrorist father in an attack separate from the killing of his father. With the justification that he COULD have been planning a terrorist plot against the united states. It's a scary precedent. Surely they have more information then that. You make it sound like they just randomly decided to kill him because he possibly could be plotting a terrorist attack. I don't think the government works like that. But this is the nature of the biggest problem with drones. You don't know that the government DOESN'T work like that either. The administration never explains or justifies why somebody had to die, and so far Obama has been getting away with it because many people believe that if Obama says someone deserved to die, they deserved it.
EDIT: Obama relents for CIA nominee John Brennan
On the eve of a battle to confirm his pick for America's CIA chief, President Barack Obama agreed Wednesday to let a small group of lawmakers look at a long-sought, classified Justice Department opinion explaining his administration's legal justification for targeting killings of American terror suspects in other countries.
|
On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote: It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. The war on terror claims to be such a war and therefore have the moral authority to act unethically (things don't become more ethical during war, they just become more tolerable) but it is not a war in any real sense and the application of the same rules to the war on terror does not reasonably follow. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied.
Even if its technically not a war, the same principles still apply so it doesn't matter whether it can truly be seen as a war or not.
When you say there is not a clear enemy to attack, you can only mean that in the sense that its hard to understand who is affiliated with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups associated with Al Qaeda. But the fact remains there is a clear understanding of who you're trying to attack.
In war time, how do you determine whether someone is a spy for for your enemy, or secretly working with them in other ways? In that case it is very similar to the situation with Al Qaeda, regardless of whether its a state or not.
Having ground to take from the enemy also seems somewhat irrelevant. I mean the only purpose of taking ground is to act as a means of understanding when you're winning the war, or how to better enable your side to win the war. But it has no bearing on whether or not a "war" is legitimate just because there is no land to take, because the ultimate purpose of war is to stop the enemy from attacking you; whether land is involved or not is immaterial.
And even if there is no army poised to invade the US, the threat of a terrorist attack is obviously something that is seen as very negative and something they want to avoid, hence "war" to prevent that from happening. I mean its just a minor change in how you define war in this case, but it all still makes sense. For that reason I can't understand why you would say the stakes have never been lower, considering the amount of damage that can be done with something as ubiquitous as an airliner (not to mention the ease of planting a number of explosives, including biological, chemical agents, and dirty bombs, in a country as big as the US!).
So I would say its very similar, if you just analyze it a little bit. Because just like in war time you don't have time to put people through a time-consuming legal process. I mean how long do some court cases drag on in the US, 5 years? There has to be some kind of expert panel, some kind of judicial process that can provide a reasonable level of defense for determining who is a terrorist and who isn't. Because it would be silly to allow someone who by all accounts is clearly working with a terrorist organization (we kind of have to have good faith here) to continue doing so, potentially leading to another serious terrorist strike that kills hundreds of people, simply because he was an American citizen. There are reasonable boundaries here.
I don't think it should be decided by one person either, but there definitely should be a process, as what they are in is basically very similar to a war.
Edit: Although I think there are grounds to argue that many of the techniques being used (i.e. torture, drone strikes on not completely identified targets) are unnecessary to win this "war", and overkill, like the Patriot Act. I think those are good arguments, and should be pursued, as the US' response needs to be proportional to what it is being threatened by.
|
On February 08 2013 01:50 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 00:51 AnomalySC2 wrote:On February 07 2013 06:51 Xahhk wrote:On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. They killed the 16 year old son of a terrorist father in an attack separate from the killing of his father. With the justification that he COULD have been planning a terrorist plot against the united states. It's a scary precedent. Surely they have more information then that. You make it sound like they just randomly decided to kill him because he possibly could be plotting a terrorist attack. I don't think the government works like that. But this is the nature of the biggest problem with drones. You don't know that the government DOESN'T work like that either. The administration never explains or justifies why somebody had to die, and so far Obama has been getting away with it because many people believe that if Obama says someone deserved to die, they deserved it. EDIT: Obama relents for CIA nominee John BrennanShow nested quote +On the eve of a battle to confirm his pick for America's CIA chief, President Barack Obama agreed Wednesday to let a small group of lawmakers look at a long-sought, classified Justice Department opinion explaining his administration's legal justification for targeting killings of American terror suspects in other countries.
I understand that, and yes it IS chilling to think about how it could potentially be used. But I would like to believe that the single most powerful man in our government didn't rise to such a position without being a reasonable and moral human being.
Plus, I know this doesn't exactly mean much, but it's not a stretch to assume the 16 year old son of a known terrorist would want revenge after our government executed his father. I assume they had plenty of intel on what he was up to. Like you said, there really is no way to know for sure, but maybe that's really a good thing right?
|
United States40768 Posts
And nobody else is bothered by the fact that this war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, along with the suspension of moral restrictions, a global warzone and the ability to declare anyone a combatant in it? The Emperor in Star Wars claimed fewer powers than the government does now and they had an actual war with the enemy before claiming indefinite emergency powers for the security of the state and to destroy the terrorist resistance.
It's not a war, or at the very least, not a conventional one and claiming all of the suspensions of checks and morality that go along with a conventional war on the basis of it is bullshit.
|
On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote:This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
We abandoned those values long ago - by the 60s any restraint we had was gone.
I mean, the Bay of Pigs alone proves that, nevermind the many, many similar (but smaller) situations in the following decades.
|
On February 08 2013 03:56 KwarK wrote: And nobody else is bothered by the fact that this war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, along with the suspension of moral restrictions, a global warzone and the ability to declare anyone a combatant in it? The Emperor in Star Wars claimed fewer powers than the government does now and they had an actual war with the enemy before claiming indefinite emergency powers for the security of the state and to destroy the terrorist resistance.
It's not a war, or at the very least, not a conventional one and claiming all of the suspensions of checks and morality that go along with a conventional war on the basis of it is bullshit. At first I was confused as to why you'd assert that the war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, but then you brought up Star Wars and it became clear. You've clearly already made up your mind as to how to regard the US, so I'm not entirely sure what you seek to gain through childish hyperbole other than some degree of accord with other posters, likely non-US citizens and those under the age of 20. This is fine I suppose, the fallacy of monolith is oh so much easier to believe when comparisons with Star Wars make sense. In any case, you'll have to pardon my refusal to buy into your Space Opera Slippery Slope.
You can point to the generally war hawkish nature of the United States and to our military operations over the past decade if you'd like to suggest that the current state of drone strikes and the like indicate a future of repression, war, and amorality, but in no way can you definitively prove such a thing. It could be argued that drone strikes reduce the chance for casualties, avoid the consequences of putting boots on the ground, and allow for the elimination of terrorist leaders that have proven otherwise very difficult to capture or kill. Nations like Yemen and Pakistan, especially the latter, continuously prove themselves patently unable to even maintain basic law and order in their own nations, with armed Islamists gunning own aid workers, doctors, and little girls on practically a weekly basis. Granted, these are hardly outright justifications for the use of drone strikes, but when terrorists are able to hide behind the veneer of the "peaceful" state (in the case of Pakistan, a nuclear one) that is clearly unable to govern its own people, atypical, surgical military operations whose efficacy hinges on expediency become far more reasonable.
In considering the issue of eliminating US citizens without due process, you'll have to forgive my unwillingness to join in with the cacophony of internet voices who seem oh so sure that the killing of a major Al-Qaeda coordinator and his son necessarily leads to an Orwellian or Palpatinian future, or even warns of one. The White House has already released a few of the "White Papers" and is making more and more information transparent as the public and Congress make their displeasure known. Furthermore, you'd have to literally know nothing about US partisan politics to suggest that Obama is unaware of what this precedent sets in terms of executive authority; in other words, if you think the current state of executive drone strike authority is going to remain unchanged through the end of Obama's term, well you've got another thing coming. Additionally, while it seems easy to make a cursory appraisal of the past ten years and say "the war on terror will most certainly continue", the specifics of Obama's (and the nation's at large) attitude towards violent conflict complicates things a fair bit.
Washington DC is filled with people who disagree. Thank God.
|
On February 08 2013 03:56 KwarK wrote: And nobody else is bothered by the fact that this war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, along with the suspension of moral restrictions, a global warzone and the ability to declare anyone a combatant in it? The Emperor in Star Wars claimed fewer powers than the government does now and they had an actual war with the enemy before claiming indefinite emergency powers for the security of the state and to destroy the terrorist resistance.
It's not a war, or at the very least, not a conventional one and claiming all of the suspensions of checks and morality that go along with a conventional war on the basis of it is bullshit. This is the critical question that is not in the "is the US becoming Big Brother" thread. Ultimately, the biggest question is whether the government will ever say "Okay, we've knocked Al Qaeda back far enough that you can wear your shoes through airport security and we don't have to scan your e-mails any more".
Unfortunately, there are few reasons to be optimistic right now. It would be a surprise to say the least if there is any serious effort to scrap DHS in our lifetime.
|
On February 08 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:56 KwarK wrote: And nobody else is bothered by the fact that this war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, along with the suspension of moral restrictions, a global warzone and the ability to declare anyone a combatant in it? The Emperor in Star Wars claimed fewer powers than the government does now and they had an actual war with the enemy before claiming indefinite emergency powers for the security of the state and to destroy the terrorist resistance.
It's not a war, or at the very least, not a conventional one and claiming all of the suspensions of checks and morality that go along with a conventional war on the basis of it is bullshit. At first I was confused as to why you'd assert that the war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, but then you brought up Star Wars and it became clear. You've clearly already made up your mind as to how to regard the US, so I'm not entirely sure what you seek to gain through childish hyperbole other than some degree of accord with other posters, likely non-US citizens and those under the age of 20. This is fine I suppose, the fallacy of monolith is oh so much easier to believe when comparisons with Star Wars make sense. In any case, you'll have to pardon my refusal to buy into your Space Opera Slippery Slope. You can point to the generally war hawkish nature of the United States and to our military operations over the past decade if you'd like to suggest that the current state of drone strikes and the like indicate a future of repression, war, and amorality, but in no way can you definitively prove such a thing . It could be argued that drone strikes reduce the chance for casualties, avoid the consequences of putting boots on the ground, and allow for the elimination of terrorist leaders that have proven otherwise very difficult to capture or kill. Nations like Yemen and Pakistan, especially the latter, continuously prove themselves patently unable to even maintain basic law and order in their own nations, with armed Islamists gunning own aid workers, doctors, and little girls on practically a weekly basis. Granted, these are hardly outright justifications for the use of drone strikes, but when terrorists are able to hide behind the veneer of the "peaceful" state (in the case of Pakistan, a nuclear one) that is clearly unable to govern its own people, atypical, surgical military operations whose efficacy hinges on expediency become far more reasonable. In considering the issue of eliminating US citizens without due process, you'll have to forgive my unwillingness to join in with the cacophony of internet voices who seem oh so sure that the killing of a major Al-Qaeda coordinator and his son necessarily leads to an Orwellian or Palpatinian future, or even warns of one. The White House has already released a few of the "White Papers" and is making more and more information transparent as the public and Congress make their displeasure known. Furthermore, you'd have to literally know nothing about US partisan politics to suggest that Obama is unaware of what this precedent sets in terms of executive authority; in other words, if you think the current state of executive drone strike authority is going to remain unchanged through the end of Obama's term, well you've got another thing coming. Additionally, while it seems easy to make a cursory appraisal of the past ten years and say "the war on terror will most certainly continue", the specifics of Obama's (and the nation's at large) attitude towards violent conflict complicates things a fair bit. Washington DC is filled with people who disagree. Thank God. i find that very ironic in this context. consider him the guy with the white paper
|
United States40768 Posts
On February 08 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:56 KwarK wrote: And nobody else is bothered by the fact that this war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, along with the suspension of moral restrictions, a global warzone and the ability to declare anyone a combatant in it? The Emperor in Star Wars claimed fewer powers than the government does now and they had an actual war with the enemy before claiming indefinite emergency powers for the security of the state and to destroy the terrorist resistance.
It's not a war, or at the very least, not a conventional one and claiming all of the suspensions of checks and morality that go along with a conventional war on the basis of it is bullshit. At first I was confused as to why you'd assert that the war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, but then you brought up Star Wars and it became clear. You've clearly already made up your mind as to how to regard the US, so I'm not entirely sure what you seek to gain through childish hyperbole other than some degree of accord with other posters, likely non-US citizens and those under the age of 20. This is fine I suppose, the fallacy of monolith is oh so much easier to believe when comparisons with Star Wars make sense. In any case, you'll have to pardon my refusal to buy into your Space Opera Slippery Slope. You can point to the generally war hawkish nature of the United States and to our military operations over the past decade if you'd like to suggest that the current state of drone strikes and the like indicate a future of repression, war, and amorality, but in no way can you definitively prove such a thing. It could be argued that drone strikes reduce the chance for casualties, avoid the consequences of putting boots on the ground, and allow for the elimination of terrorist leaders that have proven otherwise very difficult to capture or kill. Nations like Yemen and Pakistan, especially the latter, continuously prove themselves patently unable to even maintain basic law and order in their own nations, with armed Islamists gunning own aid workers, doctors, and little girls on practically a weekly basis. Granted, these are hardly outright justifications for the use of drone strikes, but when terrorists are able to hide behind the veneer of the "peaceful" state (in the case of Pakistan, a nuclear one) that is clearly unable to govern its own people, atypical, surgical military operations whose efficacy hinges on expediency become far more reasonable. In considering the issue of eliminating US citizens without due process, you'll have to forgive my unwillingness to join in with the cacophony of internet voices who seem oh so sure that the killing of a major Al-Qaeda coordinator and his son necessarily leads to an Orwellian or Palpatinian future, or even warns of one. The White House has already released a few of the "White Papers" and is making more and more information transparent as the public and Congress make their displeasure known. Furthermore, you'd have to literally know nothing about US partisan politics to suggest that Obama is unaware of what this precedent sets in terms of executive authority; in other words, if you think the current state of executive drone strike authority is going to remain unchanged through the end of Obama's term, well you've got another thing coming. Additionally, while it seems easy to make a cursory appraisal of the past ten years and say "the war on terror will most certainly continue", the specifics of Obama's (and the nation's at large) attitude towards violent conflict complicates things a fair bit. Washington DC is filled with people who disagree. Thank God. So when is the war going to be over? We got the metaphorical Obi-Wan and didn't even lose a massive ship in the process. When will security return to pre 9/11 levels? When will emergency powers be surrendered? The reason I think it's going to be indefinite is because terror isn't a person you can kill or a country that can be captured, it's a concept that will always be around. When you declare a war on a concept you haven't started an actual war, what you've done is just told everyone that the new ideological framework that you're going to operate within is a wartime ideology. The reason I don't think the war on terror has an end is because it isn't a war, it is a declaration of an ideology in which the people at the top are greatly empowered.
The release of a white paper that in short says that the President reserves the right to summarily execute anyone who he can show to meet criteria he comes up to a judge of himself is not the kind of transparency that gives me faith in the system. Rather it is a codification of emergency powers.
|
On February 08 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:56 KwarK wrote: And nobody else is bothered by the fact that this war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, along with the suspension of moral restrictions, a global warzone and the ability to declare anyone a combatant in it? The Emperor in Star Wars claimed fewer powers than the government does now and they had an actual war with the enemy before claiming indefinite emergency powers for the security of the state and to destroy the terrorist resistance.
It's not a war, or at the very least, not a conventional one and claiming all of the suspensions of checks and morality that go along with a conventional war on the basis of it is bullshit. At first I was confused as to why you'd assert that the war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, but then you brought up Star Wars and it became clear. You've clearly already made up your mind as to how to regard the US, so I'm not entirely sure what you seek to gain through childish hyperbole other than some degree of accord with other posters, likely non-US citizens and those under the age of 20. This is fine I suppose, the fallacy of monolith is oh so much easier to believe when comparisons with Star Wars make sense. In any case, you'll have to pardon my refusal to buy into your Space Opera Slippery Slope.
The original al Qaeda organization of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden has in fact been destroyed. Al Qaeda has become a franchise of sorts, a brand name. Al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Maghreb, even random groups like Abu Sayyaf. It will be decades if not longer before one could claim the AUMF has expired because every human being who might use the name "al Qaeda" is dead. This is not a slippery slope. This is not sci-fi. This is reality, in real life, right now.
|
On February 08 2013 05:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On February 08 2013 03:56 KwarK wrote: And nobody else is bothered by the fact that this war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, along with the suspension of moral restrictions, a global warzone and the ability to declare anyone a combatant in it? The Emperor in Star Wars claimed fewer powers than the government does now and they had an actual war with the enemy before claiming indefinite emergency powers for the security of the state and to destroy the terrorist resistance.
It's not a war, or at the very least, not a conventional one and claiming all of the suspensions of checks and morality that go along with a conventional war on the basis of it is bullshit. At first I was confused as to why you'd assert that the war on terror is going to be an indefinite thing, but then you brought up Star Wars and it became clear. You've clearly already made up your mind as to how to regard the US, so I'm not entirely sure what you seek to gain through childish hyperbole other than some degree of accord with other posters, likely non-US citizens and those under the age of 20. This is fine I suppose, the fallacy of monolith is oh so much easier to believe when comparisons with Star Wars make sense. In any case, you'll have to pardon my refusal to buy into your Space Opera Slippery Slope. You can point to the generally war hawkish nature of the United States and to our military operations over the past decade if you'd like to suggest that the current state of drone strikes and the like indicate a future of repression, war, and amorality, but in no way can you definitively prove such a thing. It could be argued that drone strikes reduce the chance for casualties, avoid the consequences of putting boots on the ground, and allow for the elimination of terrorist leaders that have proven otherwise very difficult to capture or kill. Nations like Yemen and Pakistan, especially the latter, continuously prove themselves patently unable to even maintain basic law and order in their own nations, with armed Islamists gunning own aid workers, doctors, and little girls on practically a weekly basis. Granted, these are hardly outright justifications for the use of drone strikes, but when terrorists are able to hide behind the veneer of the "peaceful" state (in the case of Pakistan, a nuclear one) that is clearly unable to govern its own people, atypical, surgical military operations whose efficacy hinges on expediency become far more reasonable. In considering the issue of eliminating US citizens without due process, you'll have to forgive my unwillingness to join in with the cacophony of internet voices who seem oh so sure that the killing of a major Al-Qaeda coordinator and his son necessarily leads to an Orwellian or Palpatinian future, or even warns of one. The White House has already released a few of the "White Papers" and is making more and more information transparent as the public and Congress make their displeasure known. Furthermore, you'd have to literally know nothing about US partisan politics to suggest that Obama is unaware of what this precedent sets in terms of executive authority; in other words, if you think the current state of executive drone strike authority is going to remain unchanged through the end of Obama's term, well you've got another thing coming. Additionally, while it seems easy to make a cursory appraisal of the past ten years and say "the war on terror will most certainly continue", the specifics of Obama's (and the nation's at large) attitude towards violent conflict complicates things a fair bit. Washington DC is filled with people who disagree. Thank God. So when is the war going to be over? We got the metaphorical Obi-Wan and didn't even lose a massive ship in the process. When will security return to pre 9/11 levels? When will emergency powers be surrendered? The reason I think it's going to be indefinite is because terror isn't a person you can kill or a country that can be captured, it's a concept that will always be around. When you declare a war on a concept you haven't started an actual war, what you've done is just told everyone that the new ideological framework that you're going to operate within is a wartime ideology. The reason I don't think the war on terror has an end is because it isn't a war, it is a declaration of an ideology in which the people at the top are greatly empowered. The release of a white paper that in short says that the President reserves the right to summarily execute anyone who he can show to meet criteria he comes up to a judge of himself is not the kind of transparency that gives me faith in the system. Rather it is a codification of emergency powers. Just so we're clear, I actually agree with your concern, simply not your gravity. A great many Democrats and liberals are very suspicious of Obama when it comes to defense/military, and the topic of drone strikes, executive authority, and the larger war on terror have been at the forefront of the MSNBC and CNN news cycles. This already apparent and public concern gives me some degree of optimism, though as strange as it sounds coming from me, Republicans like Chris Christie are what really help me sleep at night. If the Republican Party is able to consolidate, re-organize, and really hit the 2014 elections with fervor, the ideology of top-heavy authority becomes far more complicated and less likely to present any sort of coherent threat to American civil liberties. And partisan conflict is only one side of the coin of power dissolution, the other is departmental/branch distance, organizational flaw, and flat out stupidity. I'm simply far more likely to regard the government as an at times belligerent association rather than a solid machine. I mean, at this point in time, the federal government is currently unable to keep firearms out of the hands of diagnosed mental patients. Is the slope really so slippery?
Edit: And HunterX, I'm well aware of the ubiquity of the name "Al-Qaeda", but as far I'm concerned, it's dispersal and ad hoc adoption by regional terrorist groups seems far more evidential of the lessening of the prominence of terrorism than the alternative. In other words, the ideology is less important than the name recognition, and at this point, if you are angry at the powers that be and are Islamic, you might as well call yourself "Al-Qaeda".
|
Just because terror is a concept, doesnt mean that it should go unhindered. Before the "war on terror" they have been working unhindered, and openly in various nations that may or may not support them.
The war on terror will never end (we all know that) but it will keep them down) its a permanent foot on their throat.
|
On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote: It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied. i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong
|
Reminds me of Enemy of the State. Not that I didn't already believe that stuff was going on.
|
I wouldn't read too heavily into the paper itself. Pet lawyers producing ridiculous memos to justify whatever unethical action the president happens to be taking is par the course.
The actual campaign of drone strikes, imprisoning and other "surgical" actions by the obama administration are... while better than another outright war... pretty out of line, considering how unilateral they are and how far removed from the judicial process. There should have to be at least some collaboration and authorization by the judiciary before the anyone in the executive branch - even the president - can have someone who isnt an immediate threat killed or jailed for any unreasonable length of time.
Sitting in a room talking with terrorists is bad and all, but it isn't the same concept as a guy shooting into a crowd or trying to escape arrest. I can see why arresting people under the former circumstances is hard, but that doesn't justify simply killing them without any sort of judicial process happening.
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, it's not as if without this war on terror, the CIA would hesitate with killing dudes. let's be serious. the legal blah always is preceded by a course of action already chosen on political/power grounds.
|
This is chilling. we live in dangerous times.
|
On February 08 2013 05:56 IamPryda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote: It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied. i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong Why would it be wrong to "never use drone strikes"? As said in the previous spoilered and quoted post, the US is in no real serious threat to the point of endangering the loss of the mainland itself. Drone strikes are unnecessary killings, not to mention criminal. If a sense of justice is trying to be gained by killing people with unmanned robotic vehicles in a country you aren't even officially at war with, it's immediately being lost by the very means of trying. Drone strikes are counterproductive.
edit: Also there is definitely NO clear enemy.
|
I found that an illuminating read as well. I'll try to distill its points so we can get hopefully get some opinions on it. Bear in mind I'm no law student...
Basically, whether someone is an imminent threat or not is obviously important, but not the determining factor in whether or not the US military has a right to kill them. The reasoning is that the US is in fact at war with al Qaeda, that the battlefield of this war is more or less the entire globe, and that every terrorist/member of al Qaeda is therefore an enemy combatant. Much like how an enemy soldier during a war can be assassinated without a trial or anything of the sort, even if a battle isnt underway, a member of a terrorist group that we're at war with can be killed simply on the basis of his being an enemy combatant.
The major problem here, I think, is the problem of evidence and transparency. In a war, an enemy soldier knows what he's getting into when he puts on a uniform and a weapon. And likewise, someone who knowingly joins up with a terrorist group intending to commit an act that will kill thousands, has de facto forfeited their rights and become a valid target for killing, the same way a US soldier who went over to the enemy would become a valid target. That's basically what the government is asserting in the case of intentional drone killings of citizens.
But... Let me just insert my opinion... To just accept them at their word and leave it there seems to be taking things way too far. Soldier or terrorist, for anyone who was a citizen and was subsequently killed, his fellow citizens, family, etc deserve as full an explanation as possible. I also don't think it's fair to assume someone is a full fledged, knowing terrorist without very solid evidence. I mean, sitting down with terrorists does not a terrorist make, and furthermore, there are degrees of participation when it comes to terrorism, just as with warfare... The people who fund terrorism, or civilians that give them aid, or just sympathizers... these groups obviously shouldnt just be lumped together and killed, and its important to lay out evidence so that we can know whether a person killed by a drone was a legit threat or something else.
But of course the military/intelligence branches are reluctant to share its evidence, to avoid revealing their sources of information. In a traditional war, where territory is divided and soldiers' movements are restricted and easily tracked, this is less problematic, but this is hardly that kind of war.
So that's why we are at a sort of impasse. My gut instinct is to dislike this whole "war on terrorism" mess because it is just so broadly defined, and could conceivably be a justification for killing people on the flimsiest basis. I do not believe that's what's actually happening or is likely to happen, but how can we know that without going through due process? But then, how can we go through due process without compromising the very sources from which our evidence was drawn? I am positive informants play a huge role in any success the us has or will have against terrorists, but this necessitates that you cannot reveal much about them lest they be exposed. Same goes for technology the enemy may not know we have.
Fucking tough day for democracy. Terrorism is just a complete pain in the ass to deal with.
|
The idea of beeing at war with annything other then a national state is just completely rediculous to start with. War on drugs:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is smugling drugs without trial. War on terror:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is a terrorist.
War on illegal imigrants, war on obesitas,war on unemployment. The war on terror is just a catchphrase, it has nothing to do with a real war. All these laws giving the government unlimited freedom as soon as terrorism is involved (not only in the usa, also in europa) are the prelude to something horrible i fear
|
On February 08 2013 11:21 Rassy wrote:The idea of beeing at war with annything other then a national state is just completely rediculous to start with. War on drugs:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is smugling drugs without trial. War on terror:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is a terrorist. War on illegal imigrants, war on obesitas,war on unemployment. The war on terror is just a catchphrase, it has nothing to do with a real war. All these laws giving the government unlimited freedom as soon as terrorism is involved (not only in the usa, also in europa) are the prelude to something horrible i fear
I think "war on terror" was a bad phrase to put into circulation. You indeed, cannot make war on concepts. War on al Qaeda is very realistic and even necessary though, IMO. They are a global, paramilitary organization, and its not like Interpol is going to go and stop them for us... Nor can the police/military forces of whatever countries it has bases in be expected to do so. So that really only leaves one option.
|
Ok, just so you guys know, citizenship is about the most meaningless thing in the world. I was born in Texas, thus I am a citizen. That doesn't make me ANY more valuable of a person than anyone else. In fact, citizenship should be applied for when you're 18. Otherwise, you should just be this semi-citizen.
Anyway, while I don't think killing some guy (who -happens- to be a US citizen) in some place far from the US because he is a terrorist (or whatever the hell he really may be) is entirely the best thing to do without SOME form of trial, I do believe that the act isn't completely wrong. If some American citizen was holding a gun to some kid's head, don't you think someone should probably like, kill the guy before the kid gets killed, because you know, most people would rather have 1 living kid instead of 1 living murderer? The idea of a trial is silly, and having the person be in there in person, well that would be even more silly. Do I think they should be able to just kill anyone who they consider a "threat to the United States"? No, that would be bad. Sometimes, there are just no ways to win in a situation.
But let's be honest here, do you really think this is the worst thing someone has done? While it may be a much larger problem later, I think it might be intelligent to focus on, you know, the more significant things in the world. After all, thousands of people in Africa die all the time, and no one gives two shits.
Who knows why this guy died, but honestly, there will ALWAYS be this "TOP SEKRIT" bullshit going on. People with power will -ALWAYS- be doing something. Some small deaths, citizen or not, mean nothing in the long run. Hell, a few economic decisions could cost more American lives than all of the American citizens killed unjustly/by drone/whatever.
Also, I agree with Zahir. He was less lazy than me, too.
|
On February 08 2013 11:48 Blargh wrote:Ok, just so you guys know, citizenship is about the most meaningless thing in the world. I was born in Texas, thus I am a citizen. That doesn't make me ANY more valuable of a person than anyone else. In fact, citizenship should be applied for when you're 18. Otherwise, you should just be this semi-citizen. Anyway, while I don't think killing some guy (who -happens- to be a US citizen) in some place far from the US because he is a terrorist (or whatever the hell he really may be) is entirely the best thing to do without SOME form of trial, I do believe that the act isn't completely wrong. If some American citizen was holding a gun to some kid's head, don't you think someone should probably like, kill the guy before the kid gets killed, because you know, most people would rather have 1 living kid instead of 1 living murderer? The idea of a trial is silly, and having the person be in there in person, well that would be even more silly. Do I think they should be able to just kill anyone who they consider a "threat to the United States"? No, that would be bad. Sometimes, there are just no ways to win in a situation. But let's be honest here, do you really think this is the worst thing someone has done? While it may be a much larger problem later, I think it might be intelligent to focus on, you know, the more significant things in the world. After all, thousands of people in Africa die all the time, and no one gives two shits. Who knows why this guy died, but honestly, there will ALWAYS be this "TOP SEKRIT" bullshit going on. People with power will -ALWAYS- be doing something. Some small deaths, citizen or not, mean nothing in the long run. Hell, a few economic decisions could cost more American lives than all of the American citizens killed unjustly/by drone/whatever. Also, I agree with Zahir. He was less lazy than me, too.
A couple of issues with that statement: 1) Obviously, no, worse thing happens - it is a cruel cruel world. That does however not make it any more "okay". 2) The United States has a little issue called the declaration of independence which contains this little snippet: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - I think it is self-evident why killing people who do not threaten you, heck even killing people who do threaten you but at the cost of hundreds of innocents is in conflict with the very foundation upon which USA was founded.
I will right away say that I was dissatisfied with the fact that there was a kill-order on Osama Bin Laden and that he was not brought to justice (outright shooting someone isn't justice (although the end result might be the same) - there is a reason for the division of power into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary department), so yes I am biased. I do believe that we should hold ourselves to a higher moral code than our enemies or else we are no better than them.
|
This is horrible truth be told
|
I will right away say that I was dissatisfied with the fact that there was a kill-order on Osama Bin Laden and that he was not brought to justice (outright shooting someone isn't justice (although the end result might be the same) - there is a reason for the division of power into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary department), so yes I am biased. I do believe that we should hold ourselves to a higher moral code than our enemies or else we are no better than them.
Bin Laden was guilty no matter what and he would never get a fair trial. Bringing him to justice would cost us more time and money(protecting him, paying his attorney fess, and so forth). It makes no sense when hes guilty for what he did on 9/11. The trial would nothing be a "high profile case, show trial" for the world to see. Bin Laden would use the trial as a pulpit to spread more propaganda to the Muslim nation and the rest of the world as America is evil and I'm good. Watch Zero Dark Thirty or read articles about it, they didn't know it was Bin Laden until he was dead.
|
On February 08 2013 13:23 TriO wrote:Show nested quote +I will right away say that I was dissatisfied with the fact that there was a kill-order on Osama Bin Laden and that he was not brought to justice (outright shooting someone isn't justice (although the end result might be the same) - there is a reason for the division of power into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary department), so yes I am biased. I do believe that we should hold ourselves to a higher moral code than our enemies or else we are no better than them. Bin Laden was guilty no matter what and he would never get a fair trial. Bringing him to justice would cost us more time and money(protecting him, paying his attorney fess, and so forth). It makes no sense when hes guilty for what he did on 9/11. The trial would nothing be a "high profile case, show trial" for the world to see. Bin Laden would use the trial as a pulpit to spread more propaganda to the Muslim nation and the rest of the world as America is evil and I'm good. Watch Zero Dark Thirty or read articles about it, they didn't know it was Bin Laden until he was dead.
Recommending someone to watch Zero Dark Thirty as if that actually held the truth is kind of naïve, but nevermind that. Whether or not they knew it was Osama Bin Laden is actually completely irrelevant to the argument in the first place. The kill-order was still in effect and that was what I had a problem with. I would ask you to elaborate on why he would never be given a fair trial though? A fair trial would in the case of Osama Bin Laden be hugely a pro forma deal - but nonetheless, according to the human rights charter he had the right to one, and even open and shut cases should go before the court to avoid even the slightest suspicion of a juridicial murder (is that the English expression?). What the cost would be is irrelevant for the cost - or else you might apply that argument to everyone all the way down to the common petty thief - effectively dismantling the judicial system. Is it because you expected it would be impossible to find a neutral court? There is always Hague.
|
Interesting, could see which sources you're working with ghost com? I don't fancy reading a novel or movie or whatever zero dark thirty is, and my google search results are not showing anything promising, mostly news articles which assume the official version is correct or mention the potential inaccuracies in it without actually addressing them.
Having said that, From what I've read, the team was told to accept a surrender if they were given one, encountered resistance upon entering the compound (completely unsurprising if they stormed it without warning, which is itself understandable) and then shot a figure who peered around a corner, then shot him to death shortly afterwards while he was incapacitated, only to later discover it was bin laden.
I think what happened was regrettable, but I'm not going to be the one to tell a group of men who're storming the compound of an enemy general (more or less) and are probably going to face armed resistance they HAVE to take the enemy alive at all costs. He had forfeit his right to not be killed through his own actions, its not like their failure to take him alive was a moral lapse.
Sorry if you didn't imply any of that, just felt the need to get my thoughts out. He could've had a trial if he wanted one by turning himself in, or by surrendering and ordering his men to surrender, but he chose to continue the jihad and surround himself with armed followers so that anyone who wanted to stop him would take casualties.
Edit: just wanted to add that while I'm sure the administration had its fingers crossed that bin laden would die and save them a hassle, I don't see much they could have actually done differently.
|
Please, let's refrain from believing that what people wrote over 200 years is how everything should work. Obviously, it's what our country HAS believed in for many years, and yes, I do think there are some very logical parts to it, but in the end, it really is just a piece of paper with some guidelines on it. Many Americans believe the Declaration of Independence is the "CORRECT" way of the world, but that's just a load of shit. Let's not get too far into that.
ANYWAY.... It's a cruel world, so let's prioritize the things which are FAR more significant. Even symbolically, this guy's death is practically nothing. If you look back at presidencies all throughout the oh-so-many years, corrupt shit has been going down since, well, forever. I don't give two fucks who gets elected, they will do something corrupt, whether it comes to light or not. And no, Bill Clinton lying about having sex with a woman does not even qualify.
Also, at your second point, if this guy was truly innocent, then no, I would not consider this at all a "just" murder, but since it is assumed or whatever that this guy was a head terrorist of some sort, one way or another, then I'm pretty sure that would qualify for "threatening" people. I'm all for everyone having their right to happiness and shit, but if one citizen hinders two citizen's rights, then wouldn't it be better to get rid of the one citizen and not the two? I think the overall objective is to MAXIMIZE happy citizens and MINIMIZE casualties/suffering/whatever.
Lastly, justice is some sick stupid concept which is basically the same as revenge. It holds no purpose. It achieves nothing in reality. It's been driven into so many people's heads. It is the same as patriotism. The best course of action would be to achieve the best possible outcome through whatever means necessary. This focuses specifically on the FINAL outcome AS A WHOLE. Whatever can best achieve that goal should be the chose of action, citizen killing or not. But who is to say? It's an unsolvable issue!
This was @Ghostcom.
|
On February 08 2013 14:21 Blargh wrote: Please, let's refrain from believing that what people wrote over 200 years is how everything should work. Obviously, it's what our country HAS believed in for many years, and yes, I do think there are some very logical parts to it, but in the end, it really is just a piece of paper with some guidelines on it. Many Americans believe the Declaration of Independence is the "CORRECT" way of the world, but that's just a load of shit. Let's not get too far into that.
ANYWAY.... It's a cruel world, so let's prioritize the things which are FAR more significant. Even symbolically, this guy's death is practically nothing. If you look back at presidencies all throughout the oh-so-many years, corrupt shit has been going down since, well, forever. I don't give two fucks who gets elected, they will do something corrupt, whether it comes to light or not. And no, Bill Clinton lying about having sex with a woman does not even qualify.
Also, at your second point, if this guy was truly innocent, then no, I would not consider this at all a "just" murder, but since it is assumed or whatever that this guy was a head terrorist of some sort, one way or another, then I'm pretty sure that would qualify for "threatening" people. I'm all for everyone having their right to happiness and shit, but if one citizen hinders two citizen's rights, then wouldn't it be better to get rid of the one citizen and not the two? I think the overall objective is to MAXIMIZE happy citizens and MINIMIZE casualties/suffering/whatever.
Lastly, justice is some sick stupid concept which is basically the same as revenge. It holds no purpose. It achieves nothing in reality. It's been driven into so many people's heads. It is the same as patriotism. The best course of action would be to achieve the best possible outcome through whatever means necessary. This focuses specifically on the FINAL outcome AS A WHOLE. Whatever can best achieve that goal should be the chose of action, citizen killing or not. But who is to say? It's an unsolvable issue!
This was @Ghostcom.
The declaration of independence might be over 200 years old, but the Human rights charter is from 1948. Are you seriously going to call that a load of shit and not a goal to strive for? In that case I guess we are just about done.
I feel I have already pointed out why you argument in the next paragraph is terrible - you do not get a free pass just because someone else does bad stuff! Furthermore it isn't exactly an "either or" scenario. It is possible to be critical of multiple atrocities at once.
For your third paragraph: Without any open trial the administration is free to define terrorist as they see fit. Stalin did the same with his political opponents which I hope you are not going to defend next.
I think it is safe to say that you and I have very different definitions of justice and revenge. In my world justice is about getting people to answer for their actions, revenge is about getting back at people. The distinction is rather huge. And yes, the best course of action is always to achieve the best possible outcome. And killing innocents when no imminent threat is present is NEVER acceptable (and how in the world that should ever result in fewer terrorist is a logic that is beyond me). Our morals obviously differ far to greatly for anything meaningful to come from this, so I'll leave it at this.
For the guy above with regards to the sources I have mostly my understanding of the events from back when the operation happened, but a quick google search brings these 2 hits as the first 2: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502 http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinion/bergen-obama-osama-books And the fact that Zero Dark Thirty was denounced by the head of CIA as fiction and dramatization (which is why I called it a naïvity to believe the ultimate truth is to be found in the movie in the previous post).
I believe that the truth probably lies somewhere in between a direct kill order and the official explanation. I have no doubts that it probably went down largely as described, but I think everyone conveniently abstained from insisting on Osamas capture because it was so much more convenient to simply have him dead and not give him a podium. I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but at the end of the day, we will never really know.
EDIT: Ultimately it seems like we agree Zahir Only just saw your edit.
|
I may have given the wrong impression, but what I was trying to say with the D.o.I. is that even though the United States is basically structured around it, it does not by any means provide the best system/laws. It was made in a time far different than the one we live today. Now, I think it's very unlikely a group of people could make something better today and it work at all, but my point is that what the D.o.I. says should not be what everyone turns to in terms of moral correctness (or whatever?). Obviously, some laws must exist and must be enforced or else we have, well, chaos, but when one of these laws is broken in a situation like this, I really do not take it that seriously. It's a "war on terror"! He's got to fight that terror, even if it comes at the cost of some American citizens. Who knows the truth about this whole "war on terror" business. I'm sure it'll never be revealed, which is a damn shame. Just think how interesting it'd be if a presidency and politics truly were transparent!
And while I don't think you should ignore it, I also don't think this is the event that should be slapped onto every news headline and front page. Quite frankly, I could find 100 global health ones I give more of a shit about than that one. The United States is big, it's "important", it's influential, but this kind of shit will go on, and you know, I don't think anyone will do anything about it.
No one will have a trial because no one wants to release any information publicly, for a variety of reasons (who knows!).
Also, an example of justice (according to me) would be... Someone does something they shouldn't. That person gets punished because they do not deserve to live as if nothing happened for committing such a deed. I do not believe "justice" does anything. I think the reason why you would put someone in jail is so that they do not do it again. You cannot change the past. Obviously, when people see there is a punishment for something, they will (usually?) be less likely to do it. He died, he will no longer do whatever it is he is doing, I think that solves a problem right there. Should innocent people die? No, they shouldn't, but if it saves even more innocent people in the future, the sacrifice should be made. And, who knows what the "right" decision is, but someone has to make a decision and it just so happens that is what the president did.
But I do agree with your last bits and Zahir's post. But, if the CIA didn't want it to become publicly known, wouldn't it make sense he denounce it? Now, I still agree with you, but just sayin'!
Slightly off-topic. When I first read the OP say "I've chosen Glen's write up" I thought he might have been referring to Glenn Beck, but I was relieved to find it was not, in fact, Le Glenn Beck.
|
On February 08 2013 10:43 sorrowptoss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 05:56 IamPryda wrote:On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote: It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied. i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong Why would it be wrong to "never use drone strikes"? As said in the previous spoilered and quoted post, the US is in no real serious threat to the point of endangering the loss of the mainland itself. Drone strikes are unnecessary killings, not to mention criminal. If a sense of justice is trying to be gained by killing people with unmanned robotic vehicles in a country you aren't even officially at war with, it's immediately being lost by the very means of trying. Drone strikes are counterproductive. edit: Also there is definitely NO clear enemy. I think you are missing the point that in countries like yeman, Pakistan, Somalia there are parts of the country in which there is no centralized government. It is run by tribal groups and militias. Some of these groups are terrorist and they want to kill you and any American they can. Most actual will never get this chance but some will and have whether it's sneaking into this country and trying to blow you up or attacking an embassy. Drone strikes have proven to be very good an kill these groups and there bases. Doing nothing is not an option we have tried that it didn't work. Al quada blew 2 embassy and the USS cole before 9/11. Nothing about war is good but I would much rather be proactive about then sit and wait.
|
On February 06 2013 09:19 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:11 Solarsail wrote:On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote: It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"... Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers. This is exactly what the debate over Executive Orders is. It's just most people don't know or care about it. The fact that the US can use drone strikes against its citizens is headline grabbing but I think most informed people already realized it was the case. The interesting thing about this is just the legal gymnastics they have to do to justify it. The only reason this is news is that it got out in the open. The US government is involved in a lot of covert ops that the public nor even the mid level people and the military must not know about.
|
On February 08 2013 21:51 IamPryda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 10:43 sorrowptoss wrote:On February 08 2013 05:56 IamPryda wrote:On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote: It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied. i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong Why would it be wrong to "never use drone strikes"? As said in the previous spoilered and quoted post, the US is in no real serious threat to the point of endangering the loss of the mainland itself. Drone strikes are unnecessary killings, not to mention criminal. If a sense of justice is trying to be gained by killing people with unmanned robotic vehicles in a country you aren't even officially at war with, it's immediately being lost by the very means of trying. Drone strikes are counterproductive. edit: Also there is definitely NO clear enemy. I think you are missing the point that in countries like yeman, Pakistan, Somalia there are parts of the country in which there is no centralized government. It is run by tribal groups and militias. Some of these groups are terrorist and they want to kill you and any American they can. Most actual will never get this chance but some will and have whether it's sneaking into this country and trying to blow you up or attacking an embassy. Drone strikes have proven to be very good an kill these groups and there bases. Doing nothing is not an option we have tried that it didn't work. Al quada blew 2 embassy and the USS cole before 9/11. Nothing about war is good but I would much rather be proactive about then sit and wait.
There are still better ways to protect the country than killing al Qaeda's #2 leader every month.
|
On February 06 2013 09:27 davidohx wrote:Show nested quote + Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
LOL you think that bush is far from the tree? I believe that he was the root of the problem we have today. The war on terrorism is and was an unfortunate excuse for murder on a large scale. To be honest I would not have been surprised if this was a bush policy.
I think unintelligent people are the root of the problem we have today. I assume you haven't heard about a small incident on September 11th 2001? That was also mass murder. I can't say all of our former Presidents decisions were the best, but saying that he is a mass murderer is tooo funny.
|
I'm sorry I didn't get to this thread earlier. There have been a few threads of thought that I would have liked to respond to. I have picked out two that I think I can deal with now.
On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote: I don't understand why people are so scared of this.
The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous.
The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
Now don't get carried away by the definition so much by who gets to decide or make that judgment. In a court of law, you would be given the opportunity to defend your case and be judged by your peers. What the white memo outlines is that the power to make that judgement call lies solely within the administration. Not only that, but for example, they don't even need to have evidence to make that determination.
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: The conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..."
And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force.
I will only put forward that in interpreting these documents it is vitally important to pay special attention to the wording and the meaning of individual words. Something lawyers pay particular attention to.
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper explicitly states that its not limited to these conditions contrary to what you've said so far. Italicized text are quotes from white memo.
* This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful. * Further on * it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation.*
So not only are these NOT the minimum requirements (meaning it could be less) it specifically states that these conditions would be "sufficient". "Sufficient" in the legal world is a big gaping hole. It means that the conditions are not necessary for a lawful lethal operation. Sufficient means "enough, adequate". For example you can probably see the difference between the two phrases: i have sufficient funds vs i have the necessary funds. OR another: these are the sufficient grounds to fire you vs these are the necessary grounds to fire you.
At least in this memo it does not attempt to define what an "associated force" is. Until that is clear its leaves it open to wider interpretation. Don't be fooled by the word "force".
The way the paper defines "imminent threat" is very wide. * does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future * I personally don't know how that even works. How can you know there is an imminent threat if you have no evidence that there is one. As someone already brought up, that same imminent threat was abused to get into a war in Iraq.
Fundamentally though just because the administration asserts that someone is a terrorist doesn't mean they are. I don't care how much deliberation goes on in the white house and what supposed "intelligence" they have. Asserting that someone is a terrorist and so open to assassination behind closed doors with no recuse is not in spirit with international law. I want reiterate. "Terrorist" doesn't mean someone a stereotype "Islamic" figure that's been burned into the psyche of most Americans. As the memo shows, its anyone, anywhere in the world that the administration accuses of being a terrorist.
|
On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote: The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
It actually has been established that proselytizing for terrorism and actively encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, without engaging in any yourself, suffices to be considered a valid target. After all, Awlaki was the first assassination of a U.S. citizen under this program.
Also, while entirely separate, the government has argued that assisting a group who has renounced all forms of violence with transitioning to an entirely peaceful engagement with the political process is illegal, and makes you guilt of aid to terrorism. Also, giving money to an organization linked to terrorism for humanitarian purposes, such as building schools and hospitals, is funding terrorism, even if that money actually is only spent for humanitarian purposes, because it frees up money to commit terrorism that might otherwise have been spent on those schools and hospitals. Neither of these are going to get you assassinated, but the latter actually has landed people in prison.
|
On February 09 2013 02:34 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote: The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
It actually has been established that proselytizing for terrorism and actively encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, without engaging in any yourself, suffices to be considered a valid target. After all, Awlaki was the first assassination of a U.S. citizen under this program. Also, while entirely separate, the government has argued that assisting a group who has renounced all forms of violence with transitioning to an entirely peaceful engagement with the political process is illegal, and makes you guilt of aid to terrorism. Also, giving money to an organization linked to terrorism for humanitarian purposes, such as building schools and hospitals, is funding terrorism, even if that money actually is only spent for humanitarian purposes, because it frees up money to commit terrorism that might otherwise have been spent on those schools and hospitals. Neither of these are going to get you assassinated, but the latter actually has landed people in prison.
No it hasn't been established. And as far as I know I'm not sure what you've written is consistent with international law. Again that's not my area of expertise.
But I have to emphasis again, the definition is NOT the crux of the issue. The issue is the administration simply has to accuse you being one, it doesn't have to demonstrate so. I can accuse you of enabling a murderer for example. It doesn't matter what is the legal definition that sets out what it means to assist a murder, I still have to prove that in court. That is due process. That is what the administration is dismantling.
|
As this thread opened with Glenn Greenwald I figured I post Jeremy Scahill's take on the confirmation of John Brennan. He's a journalist very much in the same vein and it's a story which is very much the next step in this PR campaign justifying the fact that the U.S. executive has been given the power to execute people for crimes they have yet to commit. A process which, almost beautifully, creates more people that the executive will want to execute.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/jeremy_scahill_assassinations_of_us_citizens?autostart=true)
Here's a fun, and to any rational eye completely batshit, quote from the hearing:
"Senator, I think it’s certainly worthy of discussion. Our tradition, our judicial tradition, is that a court of law is used to determine one’s guilt or innocence for past actions, which is very different from the decisions that are made on the battlefield as well as actions that are taken against terrorists, because none of those actions are to determine past guilt for those actions that they took. The decisions that are made are to take action so that we prevent a future action, so we protect American lives. That is an inherently executive branch function."
If you listen very carefully you can hear lady liberty weeping.
|
I find it interesting that it's OK for Obama to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization, but it's not OK for an ex-LAPD officer to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization.
Society will fall apart once people are allowed to have personal kill lists created by methods which we all haven't agreed on as a group.
|
On February 09 2013 02:34 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote: The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
It actually has been established that proselytizing for terrorism and actively encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, without engaging in any yourself, suffices to be considered a valid target. After all, Awlaki was the first assassination of a U.S. citizen under this program. Also, while entirely separate, the government has argued that assisting a group who has renounced all forms of violence with transitioning to an entirely peaceful engagement with the political process is illegal, and makes you guilt of aid to terrorism. Also, giving money to an organization linked to terrorism for humanitarian purposes, such as building schools and hospitals, is funding terrorism, even if that money actually is only spent for humanitarian purposes, because it frees up money to commit terrorism that might otherwise have been spent on those schools and hospitals. Neither of these are going to get you assassinated, but the latter actually has landed people in prison.
Ah, so we should be going after the US government for encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, and for supplying terrorist with money and arms then? Or is this one of those cases where it's OK when we do it, but not when other people do it?
|
On February 10 2013 06:01 fight_or_flight wrote: I find it interesting that it's OK for Obama to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization, but it's not OK for an ex-LAPD officer to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization.
Society will fall apart once people are allowed to have personal kill lists created by methods which we all haven't agreed on as a group. Even if most people/everyone somehow agreed this was okay to do, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
|
On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote:I'm sorry I didn't get to this thread earlier. There have been a few threads of thought that I would have liked to respond to. I have picked out two that I think I can deal with now. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote: I don't understand why people are so scared of this.
The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous. The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force? Now don't get carried away by the definition so much by who gets to decide or make that judgment. In a court of law, you would be given the opportunity to defend your case and be judged by your peers. What the white memo outlines is that the power to make that judgement call lies solely within the administration. Not only that, but for example, they don't even need to have evidence to make that determination. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: The conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..."
And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force.
I will only put forward that in interpreting these documents it is vitally important to pay special attention to the wording and the meaning of individual words. Something lawyers pay particular attention to. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: (1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper explicitly states that its not limited to these conditions contrary to what you've said so far. Italicized text are quotes from white memo. * This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful. * Further on * it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation.* So not only are these NOT the minimum requirements (meaning it could be less) it specifically states that these conditions would be "sufficient". "Sufficient" in the legal world is a big gaping hole. It means that the conditions are not necessary for a lawful lethal operation. Sufficient means "enough, adequate". For example you can probably see the difference between the two phrases: i have sufficient funds vs i have the necessary funds. OR another: these are the sufficient grounds to fire you vs these are the necessary grounds to fire you. At least in this memo it does not attempt to define what an "associated force" is. Until that is clear its leaves it open to wider interpretation. Don't be fooled by the word "force". The way the paper defines "imminent threat" is very wide. * does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future * I personally don't know how that even works. How can you know there is an imminent threat if you have no evidence that there is one. As someone already brought up, that same imminent threat was abused to get into a war in Iraq. Fundamentally though just because the administration asserts that someone is a terrorist doesn't mean they are. I don't care how much deliberation goes on in the white house and what supposed "intelligence" they have. Asserting that someone is a terrorist and so open to assassination behind closed doors with no recuse is not in spirit with international law. I want reiterate. "Terrorist" doesn't mean someone a stereotype "Islamic" figure that's been burned into the psyche of most Americans. As the memo shows, its anyone, anywhere in the world that the administration accuses of being a terrorist.
You know, I agree with a ton of what you're saying. But I still feel there's a fundamental issue that you're just not addressing, and that's to what extent a terrorist in the "war on terror" can be equated with an enemy combatant in an actual war. Because everything you've said about rights to due process and a fair trial also go out the window an in actual war. An enemy soldier could be lounging around not posing an imminent threat to anyone, just hanging out in a bunker or trench with some rifles nearby, and he's still a valid military target, subject to air strikes, drone strikes or just being walked up to and shot. The ugly fact is, killing in war has never fallen under the authority of the judiciary, or else soldiers on the ground could never so much discharge a weapon at the enemy without presenting evidence and obtaining authorization from a judge.
So I feel that while there is a window for criticism here, the correct question is whether a war against a terrorist organization is valid, and whether terrorists in said organization can or should be defined as enemy combatants. Not whether the president can have an arbitrary kill list... I mean, technically, it does not matter whether any in the military has presidential authorization or not; once someone has been defined as an enemy combatant they become a target. The president giving a go ahead or not is largely superfluous, as a procedural matter that is frankly, not even mandatory, and probably not exercised all that often. I mean, what's really scary is that a president could simply sit back, let whatever policies his predecessor had on terrorism remain in place, and not bother about whether the military seeks his authorization or not - they are already expected to kill enemy combatants whether the commander in chief weighs in on a specific target or not.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the bit about "no minimum requirement" and sufficient condition is a common move. it's there so that the administration has a clear, positive case to prove. once we satisfy conditions A B C, then it's ok.
minimum requirement, on the other hand, is a restrictive argument. it's better used to define what the administration cannot do, instead of giving it a license to do something.
only considering the intelligence assassinations, and not the drone war stuff, i think it's a valid observation that the legal justification offends people more than the killing itself. however, having that justification is a product of 1. strong respect for the legal monitoring system 2. practical necessity/need for action.
the precise content of the legal framework on this is surely important, preferably as narrow and specificly targeted at worthwhile terrorist leader targets as possible. but, compared to having a legal vacuum/not bringing the issue into law, this is better.
i mean, the administration could have just wiped the guy out and pretended that nothing happened. is that more serious of a threat to liberty?
|
On February 11 2013 05:37 oneofthem wrote: the bit about "no minimum requirement" and sufficient condition is a common move. it's there so that the administration has a clear, positive case to prove. once we satisfy conditions A B C, then it's ok.
minimum requirement, on the other hand, is a restrictive argument. it's better used to define what the administration cannot do, instead of giving it a license to do something.
only considering the intelligence assassinations, and not the drone war stuff, i think it's a valid observation that the legal justification offends people more than the killing itself. however, having that justification is a product of 1. strong respect for the legal monitoring system 2. practical necessity/need for action.
the precise content of the legal framework on this is surely important, preferably as narrow and specificly targeted at worthwhile terrorist leader targets as possible. but, compared to having a legal vacuum/not bringing the issue into law, this is better.
i mean, the administration could have just wiped the guy out and pretended that nothing happened. is that more serious of a threat to liberty?
I actually WOULD prefer that Presidents only conduct extrajudicial assassinations knowing they are patently illegal. It makes the political cost much higher, and discourages their use except when actually necessary. It's how we operated under Clinton, after all. To quote Al Gore on extraordinary rendition, "That's a no brainer. Of course it's illegal--that's why it's called a covert operation." And remember back then, the concern over illegality was not just torture (which was still all done through proxies at that point), but even the illegality of grabbing terrorists abroad without the permission of the local governments, to be taken back to America, to be tried in civilian courts. How low we've sunk so quickly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think gore was really talking about political cost, in the sense of votes. it's more of a lose face/damage to america's self held image as a rule of law state etc.
|
|
Putting it all together, it's legal for you to be killed by the government without a trial no matter what your citizenship is, no matter where you are. This can be done with out proof as long as you are labeled a terrorist. So what's preventing anyone from being offed with he/she is magically labeled a terrorist? Am I missing something?
|
On February 06 2013 09:09 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
Benghazi ????????? Other embassies ???????
WTF. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.
|
Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
The US says the ratio of terrorists killed to civilians killed by drone strikes is about 7:3. 7 dead terrorists for every 3 dead civilians.
Others claim that it is actually 1:10, 1 dead terrorist to 10 dead civilians.
Personally I believe the US, 1:10 is a ratio you see in WW2 and other conflicts where saturation bombing was the norm. Drone strikes are targeted, using hellfire missiles that have less firepower than most bombs.
And in any case, we're at war, laws of war, we can kill the enemy, deal with it, blah blah blah. Why so many people don't understand that war is war and not not-war is a mystery to me. But I totally agree that this "well, we wouldn't kill an American citizen in America with a drone strike, but we could, and we might" argument being put forth by the Obama Administration is okay. Using military force in America is only allowed in case of rebellion or invasion, or if public order is so disrupted that martial law must be declared in a specific area (like the LA riots of 1992).
|
On March 07 2013 06:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.) The US says the ratio of terrorists killed to civilians killed by drone strikes is about 7:3. 7 dead terrorists for every 3 dead civilians. Others claim that it is actually 1:10, 1 dead terrorist to 10 dead civilians. Personally I believe the US, 1:10 is a ratio you see in WW2 and other conflicts where saturation bombing was the norm. Drone strikes are targeted, using hellfire missiles that have less firepower than most bombs. And in any case, we're at war, laws of war, we can kill the enemy, deal with it, blah blah blah. Why so many people don't understand that war is war and not not-war is a mystery to me. But I totally agree that this "well, we wouldn't kill an American citizen in America with a drone strike, but we could, and we might" argument being put forth by the Obama Administration is okay. Using military force in America is only allowed in case of rebellion or invasion, or if public order is so disrupted that martial law must be declared in a specific area (like the LA riots of 1992). In a war zone, civilians generally leave the area. When an entire country is targeted however, they can't leave.
Oh yea, it's closer to 50:1 civilians per terrorist killed (joint university study). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html
Furthermore, we use a "double-tap" method of strikes. This is a war crime and is in violation of international law. Terrorists commonly use this method to kill first responders.
I've got news for you: we're the real terrorists
|
not terribly surprising considering the U.S. has always had the option to use the military against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. the fact that it is a drone, instead of a guy walking around with a gun is legally irrelevant in my opinion.
|
On March 07 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:not terribly surprising considering the U.S. has always had the option to use the military against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. the fact that it is a drone, instead of a guy walking around with a gun is legally irrelevant in my opinion. Only the national guard directed by a state governor is allowed to exercise any military power within the united states except under martial law. The general military has never been allowed to do that.
|
The Air Force had been giving monthly statistics on drone strikes since October. It has now stopped giving those numbers, and has even gone back into previous reports and deleted publicly available data.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/03/air-force-drone-airstrike-summary-030813/
As scrutiny and debate over the use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the American military increased last month, the Air Force reversed a policy of sharing the number of airstrikes launched from RPAs in Afghanistan and quietly scrubbed those statistics from previous releases kept on their website.
|
On March 09 2013 14:40 fight_or_flight wrote:The Air Force had been giving monthly statistics on drone strikes since October. It has now stopped giving those numbers, and has even gone back into previous reports and deleted publicly available data. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/03/air-force-drone-airstrike-summary-030813/Show nested quote +As scrutiny and debate over the use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the American military increased last month, the Air Force reversed a policy of sharing the number of airstrikes launched from RPAs in Afghanistan and quietly scrubbed those statistics from previous releases kept on their website. Transparency is perfectly fine as long as no one's looking. Legit.
|
|
|
|