Obama Writing "Rules" for Killing People with Drones [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obama Writing "Rules" for Killing People with Drones


Ruble Noon
12-09-2012, 20:36
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9286

janice6
12-09-2012, 20:38
Who better to write rules for killing people than a Chicago politician (thug).

Sam Spade
12-09-2012, 20:45
"and by logical extention, in the United States"...umm, no.

The logical fallacy employed is hasty generalization. A school boy (well, maybe not one from a public school) could point out why the rules employed OCONUS and beyond the reach of civil courts don't apply in the US where the courts have jurisdiction and the ability to enforce rulings.

concretefuzzynuts
12-09-2012, 20:57
An interesting Op Ed piece. Worth the read.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/12/may-robot-shoot-back-human

oldman11
12-09-2012, 21:02
Well wait a minute now. What difference does it make if you kill a terrorist with a gun or a bomb or a drone?

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 21:09
Don't fall for this anti-American, anti-war drivel that is designed to use our own constitution as a weapon against the United States.

Anti-American and pro-Muslim groups have a vested interest in protecting their friends that wage war against the United States.

Drone attacks are effective and they terrify the al-Qaeda leadership. That's why our enemies want them stopped.

The target of these drone attacks has always been, and always will be "enemy combatants" of the United States found on the battlefield.

Don't wage war against the United States and you have nothing to worry about.

Blast
12-09-2012, 23:13
Well wait a minute now. What difference does it make if you kill a terrorist with a gun or a bomb or a drone?
In reality, none.
But to some, drones are one of the tools of choice for when the evil government starts to assassinate American citizens and herd the rest into FEMA camps. Drones are spying on us daily you know. :shocked:

QNman
12-10-2012, 06:59
Yeah, no big deal. It only affects terrorists as labeled by the POTUS and the television. That's just like due process, only better.

English
12-10-2012, 11:33
Well wait a minute now. What difference does it make if you kill a terrorist with a gun or a bomb or a drone?

That is a silly question. Any fool knows that if you are about to kill a terrorist with a gun you can ask him first whether he is a terrorist. If he says "No", you don't shoot unless he shoots you first. You can't do this with a bomb or a drone unless you drop leaflets asking the terrorists to wave red flags and the non terrorists to wave white flags but by the tme the leaflets have fallen from 4 miles up the suspects would have gone away.

The real truth s that the people who are against drones don't understand the difference between games and war. They want war to be fair with an equal chance for terrorists to kill americans as for amercans to kill terrorists. I see it differently. Terrorists are much cheaper than trained american soldiers and so for every soldier killed they need to kill at least 100 terrorists. Anything less and they are going to lose. Likewise the idea that the war can be won by killing the leaders selectively won't work either. There will always be more ready to take over! This is a war that cannot be won but it can be brought to a stop by massive degradation of their fighting strength repeated from time to time.

English

QNman
12-10-2012, 12:50
Everyone likes to consider themselves "tough enough", especially on a gun board. But what continually gets overlooked isn't the use of drones, but their use indiscriminately by one branch if government, at least once on an American citizen, with no checks and balances.

When we begin to wholly trust what Google says or what the POTUS says as gospel, and each play judge and jury based upon facts as presented without the benefit of any cross examination, we subject ourselves to precisely what the founders set up to avoid.

Be careful placing too much faith in what you read. Propaganda and spin exist, even in sources you trust. Stories are written to catch your interest and entertain more than to inform, in many cases.

GWSHARK
12-11-2012, 09:27
http://i.imgur.com/xNkg1.gif

QNman
12-11-2012, 17:50
http://i.imgur.com/xNkg1.gif

You're very quickly turning into a one-trick pony, shark. Thanks for contributing your usual amount of intellect to the conversation.

sbhaven
12-11-2012, 18:00
Perhaps this is Obama way of putting his Nobel Peace Prize to work....

:dunno:

QNman
12-11-2012, 18:37
Perhaps this is Obama way of putting his Nobel Peace Prize to work....

:dunno:

Make no mistake... I have NO PROBLEM with drones on foreign nationals who are deemed terrorists on-the-fly by the CIC, the Joint Chiefs, or GI Joe himself.

I draw the line, however, when American citizens are targeted while outside the theater of war without the founding fathers checks and balances being utilized as intended. Even if they really really deserve it (according to the MSM, the CIC or Rachel Maddow).

YMMV.

professorpinki
12-12-2012, 03:19
Don't fall for this anti-American, anti-war drivel that is designed to use our own constitution as a weapon against the United States.

Anti-American and pro-Muslim groups have a vested interest in protecting their friends that wage war against the United States.

Drone attacks are effective and they terrify the al-Qaeda leadership. That's why our enemies want them stopped.

The target of these drone attacks has always been, and always will be "enemy combatants" of the United States found on the battlefield.

Don't wage war against the United States and you have nothing to worry about.
Back when I was actually researching this sort of thing, they were saying the ratio of innocent to Taliban/AQ killed was something like 50:1. With a ratio that high, you're abandoning every concept of COIN for a poor CT strategy that largely yields little results.
Yeah, no big deal. It only affects terrorists as labeled by the POTUS and the television. That's just like due process, only better.
Yeah, we should have just caught UBL and given him a "fair" trial in front of a civilian judge with a civilian jury from another country, so that it could be truly fair and impartial.
Everyone likes to consider themselves "tough enough", especially on a gun board. But what continually gets overlooked isn't the use of drones, but their use indiscriminately by one branch if government, at least once on an American citizen, with no checks and balances.

When we begin to wholly trust what Google says or what the POTUS says as gospel, and each play judge and jury based upon facts as presented without the benefit of any cross examination, we subject ourselves to precisely what the founders set up to avoid.

Be careful placing too much faith in what you read. Propaganda and spin exist, even in sources you trust. Stories are written to catch your interest and entertain more than to inform, in many cases.
*cough* In theory Congress is supposed to monitor this shenanigans.

G26S239
12-12-2012, 03:59
Make no mistake... I have NO PROBLEM with drones on foreign nationals who are deemed terrorists on-the-fly by the CIC, the Joint Chiefs, or GI Joe himself.

I draw the line, however, when American citizens are targeted while outside the theater of war without the founding fathers checks and balances being utilized as intended. Even if they really really deserve it (according to the MSM, the CIC or Rachel Maddow).

YMMV.
You mean this scumbag? Go ahead and weep for him. He is a traitor POS that is now a good traitor POS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcFKofJ5PA

Blast
12-13-2012, 03:52
http://tpaggregate.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/drone11111111-133298-133842-640x480.jpg

QNman
12-13-2012, 06:07
Back when I was actually researching this sort of thing, they were saying the ratio of innocent to Taliban/AQ killed was something like 50:1. With a ratio that high, you're abandoning every concept of COIN for a poor CT strategy that largely yields little results.

Yeah, we should have just caught UBL and given him a "fair" trial in front of a civilian judge with a civilian jury from another country, so that it could be truly fair and impartial.

*cough* In theory Congress is supposed to monitor this shenanigans.

I'm sorry - when did UBL get his citizenship again?

QNman
12-13-2012, 06:10
You mean this scumbag? Go ahead and weep for him. He is a traitor POS that is now a good traitor POS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcFKofJ5PA

I have no doubt he's a scumbag. However, the COTUS applies even to scumbags, as long as they're citizens.

Have a judge try him in absentia, under the rules of the court or of a JAG court. Allowing the POTUS and/or the media and/or our feelings for how an individual is portrayed or perceived is dangerous waters. It's no longer a "slippery slope" - we're now swimming in the shark tank with blood on our clothes.

G26S239
12-13-2012, 07:26
I have no doubt he's a scumbag. However, the COTUS applies even to scumbags, as long as they're citizens.

Have a judge try him in absentia, under the rules of the court or of a JAG court. Allowing the POTUS and/or the media and/or our feelings for how an individual is portrayed or perceived is dangerous waters. It's no longer a "slippery slope" - we're now swimming in the shark tank with blood on our clothes.
BS. Allowing that scumbag to keep on recruiting and outfitting other scumbags like Umar Farouk Abdullmutallab with various devices until they got it right and took down an airplane would be idiotic in the extreme. Fortunately your Pollyanna outlook didn't prevail in Awlaki's case. Jimmy Carter was timid about recognizing and dealing with enemies too.

QNman
12-13-2012, 09:17
BS. Allowing that scumbag to keep on recruiting and outfitting other scumbags like Umar Farouk Abdullmutallab with various devices until they got it right and took down an airplane would be idiotic in the extreme. Fortunately your Pollyanna outlook didn't prevail in Awlaki's case. Jimmy Carter was timid about recognizing and dealing with enemies too.

BS right back. It would have taken no additional time and had the same outcome has the COTUS been followed. He was missing plenty long enough to have followed the rules, but they weren't followed. The COTUS either applies all the time or none of the time.

Don't confuse courage for ignorance. Nor weakness for respect.

Blast
12-13-2012, 10:31
BS right back. It would have taken no additional time and had the same outcome has the COTUS been followed. He was missing plenty long enough to have followed the rules, but they weren't followed. The COTUS either applies all the time or none of the time.

Don't confuse courage for ignorance. Nor weakness for respect.
In war you destroy the enemy. Awlaki was an enemy combatant in a foreign country. He was a traitor. Traitors give up any rights.
There has been no challenge to the legality of taking out Awlaki... except for the "experts" on GT.
It was a good call to eliminate the traitor and I support such actions in the future if necessary.
Warfare and political correctness is a bad mix.

G26S239
12-13-2012, 10:41
BS right back. It would have taken no additional time and had the same outcome has the COTUS been followed. He was missing plenty long enough to have followed the rules, but they weren't followed. The COTUS either applies all the time or none of the time.

Don't confuse courage for ignorance. Nor weakness for respect.
We live in a country where the Defendant has the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his defense." That is from the 6th amendment of the Bill Of Rights in case you are not familiar with it.

Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure recognize the 6th amendment in part under Rule 43 which requires that the defendant be present at
1. the initial appearance, the arraignment and the plea

2. every trial stage including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict, and

3. sentencing

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_43

Awlaki was under indictment in Yemen for capital crimes but Yemeni law prevented him from being turned over to the US. Furthermore Awlaki had never been arrested by American authorities, arraigned or formally charged in the USA.

When can a defendant be tried in absentia? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html

Since you are so big on trial in absentia tell me of one case in the US where a defendant was tried in absentia, sentenced to death and executed having never been arrested or arraigned prior to the trial or present at the beginning of the trial.

And it would have been Jimmy Carter stupid to have allowed this POS to continue recruiting and equipping would be plane bombers just because he was not in a mood to turn himself in.

G26S239
12-13-2012, 10:49
BS right back. It would have taken no additional time and had the same outcome has the COTUS been followed. He was missing plenty long enough to have followed the rules, but they weren't followed. The COTUS either applies all the time or none of the time.

Don't confuse courage for ignorance. Nor weakness for respect.
I am not confusing your ignorance with anything else.

QNman
12-13-2012, 12:23
In war you destroy the enemy. Awlaki was an enemy combatant in a foreign country. He was a traitor. Traitors give up any rights.
There has been no challenge to the legality of taking out Awlaki... except for the "experts" on GT.
It was a good call to eliminate the traitor and I support such actions in the future if necessary.
Warfare and political correctness is a bad mix.

Who gets to decide who is a traitor?

And clearly others have questioned the same... Did you miss the op of the very thread?

That this doesn't concern more people is disturbing. Apparently, the POTUS doesn't need the judicial branch as long as he has YouTube.

QNman
12-13-2012, 12:24
I am not confusing your ignorance with anything else.

Nor I yours.

What other parts of the separation of powers should we ignore when we don't like the target?

G26S239
12-13-2012, 17:09
QNman have you found even ONE case where someone who had not been arrested or arraigned or appeared at any part of the trial was tried in absentia and sentenced to death in the USA and had that sentence carried out?

There is no such case, just like there is no prohibition on killing enemies on the battlefield in time of war just because they are American citizens.

Maybe you could have sent TJ Hooker to the hinterlands of Yemen to arrest Awlaki and read his Miranda rights to him while his (Awlaki's) AQAP friends calmly looked on and stayed out of the way if you were POTUS.

Barring that would you have just let Awlaki keep on doing what he was doing until a peaceful surrender could be arranged? What solution would you advocate since killing traitorous scum appears to disturb you so much? Be specific please.



Since you are so big on trial in absentia can you tell me of one case in the US where a defendant was tried in absentia, sentenced to death and executed having never been arrested or arraigned prior to the trial and having not been present at the beginning of the trial?

See the ^^^ question mark? I rephrased that as a question because I would like you to address it rather than ignore it.

QNman
12-13-2012, 18:59
QNman have you found even ONE case where someone who had not been arrested or arraigned or appeared at any part of the trial was tried in absentia and sentenced to death in the USA and had that sentence carried out?

There is no such case, just like there is no prohibition on killing enemies on the battlefield in time of war just because they are American citizens.

Maybe you could have sent TJ Hooker to the hinterlands of Yemen to arrest Awlaki and read his Miranda rights to him while his (Awlaki's) AQAP friends calmly looked on and stayed out of the way if you were POTUS.

Barring that would you have just let Awlaki keep on doing what he was doing until a peaceful surrender could be arranged? What solution would you advocate since killing traitorous scum appears to disturb you so much? Be specific please.



Since you are so big on trial in absentia can you tell me of one case in the US where a defendant was tried in absentia, sentenced to death and executed having never been arrested or arraigned prior to the trial and having not been present at the beginning of the trial?

See the ^^^ question mark? I rephrased that as a question because I would like you to address it rather than ignore it.

Apologies - somehow I missed that before.

He does not have to be sentenced to death as a defendant of the court - he needs only have his citizenship removed. U.S.C. 1481 allows for revocation of citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, if that person voluntary:

committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

...among other things. Note the requirement of court martial or convicted "by a court of competent jurisdiction", which could certainly be a JAG court.

Again, you're ignoring the simple fact that the Constitution is being ignored here. What is the old expression? "Better to allow 100 guilty men to go free than to hang one innocent man"?

G26S239
12-13-2012, 21:23
Who gets to decide who is a traitor?

And clearly others have questioned the same... Did you miss the op of the very thread?

That this doesn't concern more people is disturbing. Apparently, the POTUS doesn't need the judicial branch as long as he has YouTube.
So the same youtube video that you question the legitimacy of for purposes of establishing that Awlaki
1. is al Qaeda and
2. is a self declared enemy of the US and
3. should be killed with a drone strike if possible to stop the clear and present danger

is not sufficient to kill the POS because he is a citizen?
So what evidence do you have that Awlaki is doing any of the things you want to take away his citizenship for?"


Apologies - somehow I missed that before.

He does not have to be sentenced to death as a defendant of the court - he needs only have his citizenship removed. U.S.C. 1481 allows for revocation of citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, if that person voluntary:



...among other things. Note the requirement of court martial or convicted "by a court of competent jurisdiction", which could certainly be a JAG court.

Again, you're ignoring the simple fact that the Constitution is being ignored here. What is the old expression? "Better to allow 100 guilty men to go free than to hang one innocent man"?
And you expect to be able to do this how?

First off justifying an unprecedented trial in absentia where the defendant has not been placed under arrest, arraigned, either pled guilty or not guilty or had a judge enter a plea of not guilty for him and was not in attendance in any part of the trial is not going to happen. The 6th amendment and Rule 43 preclude this, particularly in capital cases.

Secondly the bar for Treason was deliberately set extremely high by the founding fathers. Treason is a Capital Offense. Only 16 people have ever been convicted of Treason in the US. How are you going to convict Awlaki for Treason if he is not in custody?

Third you are overlooking the Civil War. Grant and Sherman were not passing out indictments. They were killing any Rebels who did not surrender and destroying the enemy's means to make war against the Union.

Which brings us back to another point you ignored earlier. Other than having TJ Hooker slap the cuffs on Awlaki and reading him (Awlaki) his Miranda rights, how do you propose getting Awlaki in custody in a practical workable manner so he could have his day in court?

And how many LOYAL US military members are you willing to sacrifice on the ground to give Awlaki his day in court to avoid the apparently distasteful use of a drone strike against the disloyal POS?

Blast
12-13-2012, 22:00
Who gets to decide who is a traitor?

And clearly others have questioned the same... Did you miss the op of the very thread?

That this doesn't concern more people is disturbing. Apparently, the POTUS doesn't need the judicial branch as long as he has YouTube.

Those in charge decide. Kind of a stupid question.:upeyes:

I'm not going to argue the point. Destroy the enemy whoever that may be by any and all methods.


Metallica- Seek and Destroy Music Video - YouTube

Snowman92D
12-13-2012, 23:16
What is the old expression? "Better to allow 100 guilty men to go free than to hang one innocent man"?

I think most people ascribe to the position that it's better to kill one terrorist than to allow 100 innocents to die in a terrorist attack.

Still, this all fails to address the question of how you proceed with 'due process of law' when the person being charged refuses to submit to that process. Awlaki, being a trans-national criminal, necessitated special measures being taken to eliminate the "clear and present" threat he posed to other Americans who also look to the COTUS for protection of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Paranoia being what it is in certain segments of our modern society, it probably won't do any good to tell you this. But I definitely don't think that Awlaki's death now means that a precedent has been set for the JBT's to use drone strikes on the houses of dopers in this country. When a judge issues an arrest warrant for them, the Blue Meanies can simply kick their door in and cart them off to the Old Stoney Lonesome like they always have.

You can chill. :smoking:

RussP
12-14-2012, 06:19
In war you destroy the enemy. ...
Warfare and political correctness is a bad mix.Amen...

Cavalry Doc
12-14-2012, 06:33
I sure hope there are rules, and that they are stringent. Killing obvious enemy combatants on foreign soil is ok with me. On US soil? I'm not sure I see a situatuon that law enforcement shouldn't be handling. A US passport should not be a hellfire proof shield.

I'm cautious in my support, the first case I hear about that is iffy, and I'll be right there complaining with the rest of you.

RussP
12-14-2012, 07:18
I sure hope there are rules, and that they are stringent. Killing obvious enemy combatants on foreign soil is ok with me. On US soil? I'm not sure I see a situatuon that law enforcement shouldn't be handling. A US passport should not be a hellfire proof shield.

I'm cautious in my support, the first case I hear about that is iffy, and I'll be right there complaining with the rest of you.Yep... :thumbsup:

QNman
12-14-2012, 13:57
It is increasingly obvious some are comfortable with allowing the executive branch the power to sign the death warrant of a US citizen, just as long as he is declared a terrorist, enemy of the state, etc. and since it continues to devolve into "HE COULDN'T BE ARRESTED" and "BUT HE WAS A SCUMBAG", then I am done.

A judge was not allowed to hear evidence of treason, or of otherwise plotting against the US, for which citizenship can be revoked even for born citizens. No attempt was made, simply because it was convenient not to.

Further, the ones that scare me most are the ones who loudly proclaim "any cost to the COTUS to stop terrorists and/or potentially save lives".

Life sucks. Sometimes good people die. Sometimes they die for the system, sometimes in spite of it. Either way, allowing this to pass without scrutiny - and possibly a change in the rules if necessary - is unacceptable.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be one. Not do I pretend to have the answers. But what has been allowed stinks to high heaven - even though Awlaki deserves to burn in hell.

G26S239
12-14-2012, 17:17
It is increasingly obvious some are comfortable with allowing the executive branch the power to sign the death warrant of a US citizen, just as long as he is declared a terrorist, enemy of the state, etc. and since it continues to devolve into "HE COULDN'T BE ARRESTED" and "BUT HE WAS A SCUMBAG", then I am done. And yet you ramble on about revoking his citizenship. Why would you take such a drastic step? Who the hell are you to decide that Awlaki was being treasonous or plotting against the US?

A judge was not allowed to hear evidence of treason, or of otherwise plotting against the US, for which citizenship can be revoked even for born citizens. No attempt was made, simply because it was convenient not to.
What is this fixation of yours on revoking Awlaki's citizenhip? Is it because as a non citizen you would feel comfortable killing him with a drone strike? Because if that is the case you are a hypocrite. It just means that prior to killing a US citizen you would use the legal fig leaf of stripping their citizenship. Presumably after you violated his rights under the 6th amendment and Rule 43 by stripping his citizenship when he had not had his day in court. :upeyes:

Further, the ones that scare me most are the ones who loudly proclaim "any cost to the COTUS to stop terrorists and/or potentially save lives".
Says the ideologically pure Pollyanna who on page one of this thread was recommending violating Awlaki's 6th amendment rights and Rule 43 by trying Awlaki in absentia. Hypocrite.

Life sucks. Sometimes good people die. Sometimes they die for the system, sometimes in spite of it. Either way, allowing this to pass without scrutiny - and possibly a change in the rules if necessary - is unacceptable.
And sometimes POS Islamic scum die and leave sob sisters like yourself :crying: over that. In the same thread that you advocated trial in absentia to give yourself the fig leaf of having stripped Awlaki's citizenship prior to having him killed.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be one. Not do I pretend to have the answers. But what has been allowed stinks to high heaven -
No you don't. You came into this thread with a clear misunderstanding of the constitution, particularly of the 6th amendment. But of course you are the constitutional purist - at least in your own eyes.

even though Awlaki deserves to burn in hell.
How did you reach this conclusion? Who the hell are you to determine whether Awlaki deserves to burn in hell?

Ruble Noon
12-14-2012, 17:22
And yet you ramble on about revoking his citizenship. Why would you take such a drastic step? Who the hell are you to decide that Awlaki was being treasonous or plotting against the US?

What is this fixation of yours on revoking Awlaki's citizenhip? Is it because as a non citizen you would feel comfortable killing him with a drone strike? Because if that is the case you are a hypocrite. It just means that prior to killing a US citizen you would use the legal fig leaf of stripping their citizenship. Presumably after you violated his rights under the 6th amendment and Rule 43 by stripping his citizenship when he had not had his day in court. :upeyes:

Says the ideologically pure Pollyanna who on page one of this thread was recommending violating Awlaki's 6th amendment rights and Rule 43 by trying Awlaki in absentia. Hypocrite.

And sometimes POS Islamic scum die and leave sob sisters like yourself :crying: over that. In the same thread that you advocated trial in absentia to give yourself the fig leaf of having stripped Awlaki's citizenship prior to having him killed.

No you don't. You came into this thread with a clear misunderstanding of the constitution, particularly of the 6th amendment. But of course you are the constitutional purist - at least in your own eyes.

How did you reach this conclusion? Who the hell are you to determine whether Awlaki deserves to burn in hell?

Enjoy your tyranny. You will get it and you deserve it.

G26S239
12-14-2012, 17:45
Enjoy your tyranny. You will get it and you deserve it.
Killing an active threat = tyranny? Right.

There must be a better way Ruble. I know! Lets link arms with our Islamist brethren and sing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w3Lm_gu-ZY

QNman
12-14-2012, 18:06
Killing an active threat = tyranny? Right.

There must be a better way Ruble. I know! Lets link arms with our Islamist brethren and sing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w3Lm_gu-ZY

Go be nasty elsewhere. If you are unable to articulate a position without resorting to name-calling, then somewhere there's a third grade playground missing its bully.

I've stated my position several times. If you don't see value in judicial oversight - if you don't see constitutionality being broken - then you are already beyond reason. Tyranny will suit you well, as long as the television tells you everything is ok.

Now go duke it out with someone who just wants to name call. Try furball. When you want to participate in some adult give-and-take, point and counterpoint, I will still be around.

Cavalry Doc
12-14-2012, 18:13
It is increasingly obvious some are comfortable with allowing the executive branch the power to sign the death warrant of a US citizen, just as long as he is declared a terrorist, enemy of the state, etc. and since it continues to devolve into "HE COULDN'T BE ARRESTED" and "BUT HE WAS A SCUMBAG", then I am done.

A judge was not allowed to hear evidence of treason, or of otherwise plotting against the US, for which citizenship can be revoked even for born citizens. No attempt was made, simply because it was convenient not to.

Further, the ones that scare me most are the ones who loudly proclaim "any cost to the COTUS to stop terrorists and/or potentially save lives".

Life sucks. Sometimes good people die. Sometimes they die for the system, sometimes in spite of it. Either way, allowing this to pass without scrutiny - and possibly a change in the rules if necessary - is unacceptable.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be one. Not do I pretend to have the answers. But what has been allowed stinks to high heaven - even though Awlaki deserves to burn in hell.

I've litigated cases before judges in defense of others before. Not my main job, but it has happened. (Don't ask for the details)

I promise, if you can show me a questionable case of eliminating a US citizen that may not have been a valid enemy combatant, I will be on your side.

BTW: We agree on much more than we disagree, and you are still "good people" in my book.

G26S239
12-14-2012, 18:27
Go be nasty elsewhere. If you are unable to articulate a position without resorting to name-calling, then somewhere there's a third grade playground missing its bully.

I've stated my position several times. If you don't see value in judicial oversight - if you don't see constitutionality being broken - then you are already beyond reason. Tyranny will suit you well, as long as the television tells you everything is ok.

Now go duke it out with someone who just wants to name call. Try furball. When you want to participate in some adult give-and-take, point and counterpoint, I will still be around.Posting Kumbaya is not name calling.

I addressed your post point by point and Ruble responded by not addressing any specific points.

On that note you continue avoiding any answer as to how Awlaki should have been dealt with. If your opinion is that that BO should have left him running free in Yemen rather than kill him please state that explicitly. If you have any other ideas about how he could have been prevented from more mischief and eventually brought in please share them.

Simply stating that you don't like how it was handled and summing up by stating that you have no answer is a cop out.

Leaving a threat like Awlaki running free is unacceptable too me.

Is leaving Awlaki free and capable of further recruitment and plotting acceptable to you?

Ruble Noon
12-14-2012, 18:47
Posting Kumbaya is not name calling.

I addressed your post point by point and Ruble responded by not addressing any specific points.

On that note you continue avoiding any answer as to how Awlaki should have been dealt with. If your opinion is that that BO should have left him running free in Yemen rather than kill him please state so. If you have any other ideas about how he could have been prevented from more mischief and eventually brought in please share them.

Simply stating that you don't like how it was handled and summing up by stating that you have no answer is a cop out.

Leaving a threat like Awlaki running free is unacceptable too me.

Is leaving Awlaki free and capable of further recruitment and plotting acceptable to you?

What you can't get through your head is this is not about Awlaki, this is not about the islamists that the government tells you you should live in fear of, this is about one person IE, the POTUS having the power to kill an American citizen without due process. Who else is on this list that only Obama is privy to? Where does Obama get this power?
Look at what happened to Nixon with his political enemies list yet people like you are willing to give obama carte blanche authority to assassinate American citizens. Amazing.

G26S239
12-14-2012, 19:14
Make no mistake... I have NO PROBLEM with drones on foreign nationals who are deemed terrorists on-the-fly by the CIC, the Joint Chiefs, or GI Joe himself.

I draw the line, however, when American citizens are targeted while outside the theater of war without the founding fathers checks and balances being utilized as intended. Even if they really really deserve it (according to the MSM, the CIC or Rachel Maddow).

YMMV.
So Yemen was not a theater of War in September 2011?

Amnesty International says otherwise
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/yemen-abyan-conflict-human-rights-catastrophe-2012-12-04

QNman
12-14-2012, 19:18
I've litigated cases before judges in defense of others before. Not my main job, but it has happened. (Don't ask for the details)

I promise, if you can show me a questionable case of eliminating a US citizen that may not have been a valid enemy combatant, I will be on your side.

BTW: We agree on much more than we disagree, and you are still "good people" in my book.

Obviously, I can't. Thank God.

My concern is that this person - who was a US citizen - was not killed in the theater of war or in the heat of battle. He was in Yemen.

While a precedent may not exist... and while it may have been a difficult (or even impossible) task - it was not even attempted. Bypass of the checks and balances is a dangerous game. It rarely starts in history with the obvious "bad case"; the Jews were not exterminated on "day one" (they were vilified, then persecuted first). However, Germany got to the point where they were rounding folks up and killing them by the trainload.

I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but I see the crack in the surface, and fear it can only grow.

And thank you, Doc. I hope you know the feeling is mutual. We DO agree far more than not, and I always enjoy your wit and banter, even when we disagree.

QNman
12-14-2012, 19:26
Posting Kumbaya is not name calling.

I addressed your post point by point and Ruble responded by not addressing any specific points.

On that note you continue avoiding any answer as to how Awlaki should have been dealt with. If your opinion is that that BO should have left him running free in Yemen rather than kill him please state that explicitly. If you have any other ideas about how he could have been prevented from more mischief and eventually brought in please share them.

Simply stating that you don't like how it was handled and summing up by stating that you have no answer is a cop out.

Leaving a threat like Awlaki running free is unacceptable too me.

Is leaving Awlaki free and capable of further recruitment and plotting acceptable to you?

Hey, I post frequently from my iPhone... sometimes that isn't as seamless as I'd like. Sue me.

You're right, of course... except I'd say most sentient beings can recognize the dripping sarcasm in your post. Not to mention the name-calling directed at me before, nor the outrageous overstatements and generalizations, followed by disregarding a point I've made numerous times in this very thread.

Seriously - you disagree with me? I can live with that. You think I'm a twit? I'll sleep just fine tonight.

I've stated numerous times that my problem is with how it was handled, and I've suggested how I thought it should have been handled. Yet you want to make it out like I would prefer Awlaki have gotten a hand shake and a wet one from Scarlett Johansson... even though I've stated otherwise.

You either cannot or will not grasp what my issue is - so why try? Why continue this banter? Why continue to hurl insults - are you trying to compensate for something?

Let's just agree to disagree and walk away, eh? Go bark at someone else's mailman.

QNman
12-14-2012, 19:29
So Yemen was not a theater of War in September 2011?

Amnesty International says otherwise
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/yemen-abyan-conflict-human-rights-catastrophe-2012-12-04

OMG, seriously? Do we have soldiers fighting in Yemen? Was Awlaki at the front? Was he conspiring, fighting, any of those things?

It's OK if you think there's no problem assassinating a US citizen outside the theater of war. I'd disagree with that assertion, but it is your right to believe that. Don't pretend it's something else, please.

QNman
12-14-2012, 19:38
What you can't get through your head is this is not about Awlaki, this is not about the islamists that the government tells you you should live in fear of, this is about one person IE, the POTUS having the power to kill an American citizen without due process. Who else is on this list that only Obama is privy to? Where does Obama get this power?
Look at what happened to Nixon with his political enemies list yet people like you are willing to give obama carte blanche authority to assassinate American citizens. Amazing.

Yup..

G26S239
12-14-2012, 20:34
What you can't get through your head is this is not about Awlaki, this is not about the islamists that the government tells you you should live in fear of, this is about one person IE, the POTUS having the power to kill an American citizen without due process. Who else is on this list that only Obama is privy to? Where does Obama get this power?
Look at what happened to Nixon with his political enemies list yet people like you are willing to give obama carte blanche authority to assassinate American citizens. Amazing.

Actually it IS about Awlaki for the following reasons.

1. al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1996. Do you dispute that this happened? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatwa_1996.html

2. al Qaeda made good on their declaration of war against the US by bombing US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, attacking the USS Cole and the Sept 11 attacks among other things. Do you dispute that these things have happened or that al Qaeda was responsible?

3. Awlaki clearly, to my satisfaction anyway, identifies himself as being at war with the US in the video posted by using the phrase "we have chosen the path of war" and as a member of al Qaeda by stating "my brothers in al Qaeda" among other things. Is there anything that leads you to believe that Awlaki was not a member of al Qaeda? Or that Awlaki was not at war with the US?

In his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcFKofJ5PA

4. Awlaki was specifically targeted because he was al Qaeda and he was at war with the US. If you disagree with this assertion please explain why you disagree.

If you agree that Awlaki was al Qaeda and at war with the US please answer the following question.

Do you believe that the constitution provides immunity from being targeted and killed by US forces to American citizens who choose to make war against the US from a geographic location not controlled by the US and not accessible to US law enforcement and US judicial proceedings?

If you do, please cite the part of the constitution that you believe bestows such immunity upon self avowed enemies of the US who happen to be US citizens.

If you do not believe that Awlaki was a member of al Qaeda and/or was not at war with the US please explain why you doubt his status as a member of al Qaeda and/or why you do not believe that he was at war with the US.

Ruble Noon
12-14-2012, 20:49
Actually it IS about Awlaki for the following reasons.



No, it is not. It is about giving one man the power of life or death with no oversight of an American citizen. Once the government has a power they do not relinquish it, instead they expand on it. We gave the government power to tax us for social security at no more than 3%. They have quadrupled that tax. We gave the government the power regulate our environment and now they want to regulate dust.
Once you quit fearing the "Turrorists" then we can have a discussion. 'Till then :wavey:

QNman
12-14-2012, 20:51
No, it is not. It is about giving one man the power of life or death with no oversight of an American citizen. Once the government has a power they do not relinquish it, instead they expand on it. We gave the government power to tax us for social security at no more than 3%. They have quadrupled that tax. We gave the government the power regulate our environment and now they want to regulate dust.
Once you quit fearing the "Turrorists" then we can have a discussion. 'Till then :wavey:

There ARE bigger things in life than life itself.

G26S239
12-14-2012, 21:21
OMG, seriously? Do we have soldiers fighting in Yemen? Was Awlaki at the front? Was he conspiring, fighting, any of those things?At the very least there are armed US drones in Yemen. I would not be surprised if there are advisors or sniper teams in Yemen but I don't know. As far as whether Awlaki was at the front, when discussing guerilla forces the front can be anywhere.

US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were on the front lines on August 7th 1998.

Downtown NYC, a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon in DC were the front lines on Sept 11 2001.

Kula, on the island of Bali, was the front line on 12 October 2002.

Madrid Spain was the front line on 11 March 2004.

London England was the front line on 7 July 2005.

Mumbai India was the front line on 26 to 29 November 2008.

Kampala Uganda was the front line on 11 July 2010.

As for whether Awlaki was conspiring, fighting, any of those things? I inferred that you had tacitly stipulated that he was when you posted "even though Awlaki desrves to burn in hell". Why did you post that if you do not believe that Awlaki is a bad person?






It's OK if you think there's no problem assassinating a US citizen outside the theater of war. I'd disagree with that assertion, but it is your right to believe that. Don't pretend it's something else, please.
Yemen is a theater of war. Denying that fact is ridiculous.

QNman
12-14-2012, 21:31
At the very least there are armed US drones in Yemen. I would not be surprised if there are advisors or sniper teams in Yemen but I don't know. As far as whether Awlaki was at the front, when discussing guerilla forces the front can be anywhere.

US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were on the front lines on August 7th 1998.

Downtown NYC, a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon in DC were the front lines on Sept 11 2001.

Kula, on the island of Bali, was the front line on 12 October 2002.

Madrid Spain was the front line on 11 March 2004.

London England was the front line on 7 July 2005.

Mumbai India was the front line on 26 to 29 November 2008.

Kampala Uganda was the front line on 11 July 2010.

As for whether Awlaki was conspiring, fighting, any of those things? I inferred that you had tacitly stipulated that he was when you posted "even though Awlaki desrves to burn in hell". Why did you post that if you do not believe that Awlaki is a bad person?

Yemen is a theater of war. Denying that fact is ridiculous.

I DO believe he was evil. But this isn't about Awlaki. It's about enumerated powers of the executive branch with respect to American citizens at large. I thought we settled that?

And calling Yemen a "theater of war" is weak at best and disingenuous at worst. "Denying it" is easy - because it just ain't so.

He was killed. I won't lose any sleep over his loss. However, I may lose some over the dangerous precedent of allowing the executive branch the powers of corporal punishment without the assistance and approval of the judiciary, as long as we are dealing with an American citizen.

G26S239
12-14-2012, 23:33
I DO believe he was evil. But this isn't about Awlaki. It's about enumerated powers of the executive branch with respect to American citizens at large. I thought we settled that?
I have not agreed that you get to determine how I discuss this case. And this case IS about Alwaki because he was targeted for the reasons I listed. We are not talking about Alex Jones being targeted for publishing idiot theories.

And calling Yemen a "theater of war" is weak at best and disingenuous at worst. "Denying it" is easy - because it just ain't so.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/yemen-war

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=0

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/may/21/saudi-arabia-and-new-us-war-yemen/

http://www.thenation.com/article/168198/ending-us-war-yemen

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/120516/yemen-al-qaeda-cia-us-military-obama

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=5282

http://www.salon.com/2011/06/14/yemen-illegal-war/


He was killed. I won't lose any sleep over his loss. However, I may lose some over the dangerous precedent of allowing the executive branch the powers of corporal punishment without the assistance and approval of the judiciary, as long as we are dealing with an American citizen.
At this point BO ordering airstrikes in the USA against the Vice Lords, NRA, Tea Party meetings etc remains a hypothetical situation that has not happened and is highly unlikely to happen.

In contrast to your concerns I would consider Obama remiss in his duty as Commander in Chief if he had decided to allow Awlaki to continue making propaganda videos and recruiting and outfitting underwear bombers because arrest, arraignment, plea, trial and sentencing was not a viable option with him living in AQAP controlled areas of Yemen.

258,000 confederates were killed without trial making war on the USA on American soil.

G26S239
12-14-2012, 23:51
No, it is not. It is about giving one man the power of life or death with no oversight of an American citizen. Once the government has a power they do not relinquish it, instead they expand on it. We gave the government power to tax us for social security at no more than 3%. They have quadrupled that tax. We gave the government the power regulate our environment and now they want to regulate dust.
Once you quit fearing the "Turrorists" then we can have a discussion. 'Till then :wavey:
Tourists? I have no fear of tourists. I have even been a tourist. :wavey:

QNman
12-15-2012, 07:24
I have not agreed that you get to determine how I discuss this case. And this case IS about Alwaki because he was targeted for the reasons I listed. We are not talking about Alex Jones being targeted for publishing idiot theories.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/yemen-war

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=0

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/may/21/saudi-arabia-and-new-us-war-yemen/

http://www.thenation.com/article/168198/ending-us-war-yemen

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/120516/yemen-al-qaeda-cia-us-military-obama

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=5282

http://www.salon.com/2011/06/14/yemen-illegal-war/


At this point BO ordering airstrikes in the USA against the Vice Lords, NRA, Tea Party meetings etc remains a hypothetical situation that has not happened and is highly unlikely to happen.

In contrast to your concerns I would consider Obama remiss in his duty as Commander in Chief if he had decided to allow Awlaki to continue making propaganda videos and recruiting and outfitting underwear bombers because arrest, arraignment, plea, trial and sentencing was not a viable option with him living in AQAP controlled areas of Yemen.

258,000 confederates were killed without trial making war on the USA on American soil.

Fair enough - I stand corrected. There WAS military involvement in Yemen. Forgive my ignorance, and thank you for your sources.

I am not concerned about air strikes over US soil. I am concerned only with powers of the executive. I never once suggested we should concern ourselves with capture, arraignment, etc. My argument has always been his citizenship should have been questioned by the judiciary.

I will admit, finding Yemen to be an area of conflict at the time changes this somewhat.