US citizen murdered by government without trial

No it's not.

That's mainly based on her other posts claiming Iraq was better with Saddam in charge.

As far as a "fair trial", that's NOT the way Military operations work, and you know that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, I just don't agree with Paul.

I don't think you will find many other Congressmen that do.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well I don't agree with you sooo...

As far as I am concerned Paul show's more care for the constitution than any other politician. If there had been a judicial and congressional oversight and they showed proof that they could not bring him in for trial then I would not have questioned the drone attack.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And how many military operations have been aimed at US citizens by the US military in this kind of surgical manner? He wasn't even in a country we are at war with.

 

Yeah Lucy, that makes sense that the military share that information with you about their operational abilities.

Get real

They took him out the best way they could.

 

So if a Terrorist isn't in a country that we are at war at they are untouchable?

What is your problem?

He was a Terrorist.

He was helping to plan to kill Americans where and whenever he could.

He was helping to convince others to do the same.

But you are saying we shouldn't have done so just because he was born here?


Look, there were lots of American fighting for Germany in WW2.
We didn't treat them any differently than any other German soldiers.

Why would we do so now?

 

Misrepresentation. I said I didn't believe another nation should decide upon regime change, and I hold any nation who goes to bed with and props up an evil dictator suspect in their reasons for taking down a country...because you know when you wage war its the people who you are killing. I am saying that the reasons why the US went into that war wasn't because they gave a rats ass about the people. I never defended Saddam, I just said he kept the peace among the various religious groups and their tensions and I'm not the only one to have said so either. And for your information I don't hate america, I love it. I love it so much that I want it to be what it has been striving to be and not this sorry mess it has become. To fix a problem you have to address it. A loving mother is not the one who doesn't try to correct her child and smiles at anything he/she does.

If alwaki was a terrorist why didn't they just charge him with offenses? Why didn't they show his nefarious activities? All we really know about him is that he was a radical cleric.

 

No fuckin way.
Your position was clear from the start.
You think we should have left Saddam in Iraq.
And had we done so he would still be there because the people didn't have a chance against his band of thugs.

And clearly you don't "love America" as you put us down every chance you get.

Indeed, as you just said when you called us: "this sorry mess it has become"

Ah no, we aren't a sorry mess, no matter wtf you think of us.

 

You might as well, you're the ones who put him there. And also you had to lie to find a reason to go in.

It is a sorry mess. Sorry but the truth is the truth. But telling the truth is stronger than covering up shit and dirty deeds.

 

I could swear I mentioned his being a US citizen a number of times.

Or a suspected one.

Yup, we tend to give each other trials.

That was on the fields of battle. In this case a specific decision was made to kill a specific individual in a country we are not at war with. Of course soldiers encountering a platoon of enemy soldiers cannot ask for passports or whatever before opening fire.

 

If she was referring to Iraq, this does not mean she does not love her country. And if she meant the US, are you really going to say that everyone who thinks Obama has made the country a mess does not love their country? Or those who think that Bush did?

Whether she loves the country or not, you can either refute her arguments or you can't, this is just trying to make someone back off by labeling them. And it is also an ad hominim argument and against forum rules. Can you counter her arguments or not? If you can, there is no need to weigh in on her patriotism.

 

Once you join Al Qaeda you are not a SUSPECTED terrorist, you are an ACTUAL Terrorist.

And Al Qaeda has declared war on the US.

So we have engaged our MILITARY to take them out.

The military does not serve warrants.
The military does not require probable cause.
The military has standing orders to kill Al Qaeda members when and where it finds them.
Being a US citizen doesn't give you a pass.

You want to make this a criminal issue.
It's not.

Arthur

 

No, I'm just stating a fact.
She's not an American so it's not a question of patriotism.

 

Since I'll get banned if I continue in this thread I'm going to exit.

I've made my points.

AMF.

 

A post from a news site on this very issue sums things up nicely:

"At first, they killed off Islamic Citizens without trial; but I did nothing because I am not an Islamic Citizen. Then they killed off 'Domestic Terrorists' without trial; but I did nothing because I am not a Domestic Terrorist; then they killed off Conspiracy Theorists and Agitators; I did nothing because I am not a Conspiracy Theorists or Agitator; then they came to kill me.." I'd mention slippery slope and the fact the constitution applies TO ANY AND ALL CITIZENS...but these dopes truly believe "If you're not with 'us', then you are against 'us'" yet fail to see that is it the US Government VERSUS the Citizenry."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...n_unconstitutional_killing.html#ixzz1ZrlaDPFQ

 

Geez you're late. Everyone left the playground a while ago packing up their toys to go home. The discussion has already been exhausted. Idiot and moron are endearments compared to what we really could have called one another. No point in refereeing after everyone has left the ring.

 

Red-Light Rhetoric

And, of course, I think it is. But what strikes me about our present dialogue is that you don't seem to recognize—or, perhaps, care—that, fundamentally, I agree with you.

I agree. But there is a rhetorical construction, based in part on the Constitution itself (Amendment V) and a post-9/11 statute that can be arranged such as to challenge the fundamental and underlying right.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Boldface accent added)​

It's that boldface portion above that demarcates the constitutional consideration.

Indeed, the article Quadraphonics pointed you to considers a context attached to that. But let us go past the Saletan article and look to one of the Slate author's sources, John O. Brennan:

An area in which there is some disagreement is the geographic scope of the conflict. The United States does not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa'ida as being restricted solely to "hot" battlefields like Afghanistan. Because we are engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida, the United States takes the legal position that —in accordance with international law—we have the authority to take action against al-Qa'ida and its associated forces without doing a separate self-defense analysis each time. And as President Obama has stated on numerous occasions, we reserve the right to take unilateral action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions themselves.

That does not mean we can use military force whenever we want, wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for a state's sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important constraints on our ability to act unilaterally—and on the way in which we can use force—in foreign territories.

Others in the international community—including some of our closest allies and partners—take a different view of the geographic scope of the conflict, limiting it only to the "hot" battlefields. As such, they argue that, outside of these two active theatres, the United States can only act in self-defense against al-Qa'ida when they are planning, engaging in, or threatening an armed attack against U.S. interests if it amounts to an "imminent" threat.

In practice, the U.S. approach to targeting in the conflict with al-Qa'ida is far more aligned with our allies' approach than many assume. This Administration's counterterrorism efforts outside of Afghanistan and Iraq are focused on those individuals who are a threat to the United States, whose removal would cause a significant – even if only temporary – disruption of the plans and capabilities of al-Qa'ida and its associated forces. Practically speaking, then, the question turns principally on how you define "imminence."

We are finding increasing recognition in the international community that a more flexible understanding of "imminence" may be appropriate when dealing with terrorist groups, in part because threats posed by non-state actors do not present themselves in the ways that evidenced imminence in more traditional conflicts. After all, al-Qa'ida does not follow a traditional command structure, wear uniforms, carry its arms openly, or mass its troops at the borders of the nations it attacks. Nonetheless, it possesses the demonstrated capability to strike with little notice and cause significant civilian or military casualties. Over time, an increasing number of our international counterterrorism partners have begun to recognize that the traditional conception of what constitutes an "imminent" attack should be broadened in light of the modern-day capabilities, techniques, and technological innovations of terrorist organizations.

The convergence of our legal views with those of our international partners matters. The effectiveness of our counterterrorism activities depends on the assistance and cooperation of our allies—who, in ways public and private, take great risks to aid us in this fight. But their participation must be consistent with their laws, including their interpretation of international law. Again, we will never abdicate the security of the United States to a foreign country or refrain from taking action when appropriate. But we cannot ignore the reality that cooperative counterterrorism activities are a key to our national defense. The more our views and our allies' views on these questions converge, without constraining our flexibility, the safer we will be as a country.​

Now, regardless of whether you might think that all adds up to a snow job, these are fundamental considerations in the legal questions surrounding the hit.

As to questions of morals and principles, I think—

—you've slipped into a mode where you're looking for a fight more than a resolution. That is, for all I might say about how—

• "there are a number of unsettling aspects", or,
• "If he was in Afghanistan, I would can all of my concerns for now", or,
• "Were I president, I would have very publicly asked Yemen to surrender the two American citizens I was after", or,
• "They were not on a reasonably defined battlefield. Indictment, extradition, and trial. That is the proper way", or,
• "I'm unsettled", or,
• "part of the operating theory going forward is that it was an act of war, but no, I don't like the lack of delineation", or,
• "It is a slow and harrowing transformation"​

—you don't seem to care. Rather, you want to pick a fight—

"I'm not arguing freedom of speech, I'm arguing that the guy should have been brought back to the US to stand trial, he wasn't a major player in Al Qaeda, in fact he was nothing more than a propagandist from all accounts."​

—and screw reading comprehension into the ground:

Tiassa: If Yemen said no? I don't know, maybe another Abbottabad, and then I could just say they resisted arrest. But, no, I'm not certain.

Mrs.Lucysnow: Resisted arrest? It was a drone attack!!!!​

The only parts of my posts you appear to have read, Mrs.Lucysnow, are the parts you want to pitch a hissy-cow about.

"I do like the way you say 'if congress doesn't want to change things' as if this is a government body somehow divorced from you the citizen. I thought those boys were supposed to work for you? I thought they were supposed to represent you? You know, that dying carcass in the corner they call 'the democracy'. Anyway, isn't it up to you to demand these changes?"​

Remember that? Apparently you didn't read the paragraph that went—

At some point, people will decide they've had enough. And if we're lucky, the American way in these issues is that we won't prosecute anyone, because it would be unfair to prosecute, say, the next president for what was reasonably legal and looked past in two prior administrations. But the American people will put their foot down insofar as they ever do, and the government will publicly separate itself from the practices through legislation and executive orders, but continue to assassinate suspects abroad through covert operations.​

—or, perhaps, you simply ignored it in order to throw a stupid, hysterical fit.

You want people to take you seriously, madam? Then fuck this stupid game you're playing. Get your head out and start treating people with at least some pretense of respect. Don't cry about what's not there when the only reason you think it's not there is because you missed it.

You want respect? Then don't run around screaming like a desperate harpy. I mean, sure, fuck-all, I'm sorry I can't agree with you entirely about everything you say; and, yes, I like a good tussle and row sometimes, too. But you seem so desperate for it you might as well go sell it on the streetcorner, a red-light version of a Monty Python sketch°. And that's fine; it's your business. But if that's how you present yourself, then yeah, you're pretty much the rhetorical equivalent of a quick, dirty throw in an hourly-rate motel.

And, yeah, just like real whores, sometimes people want something a bit more classy than sticky skin that reeks of bourbon and meth, at least a shade more intelligent than a spent condom in the gutter.

The world ain't as simple as any of us want it to be. But that doesn't make everyone who disagrees with you dogs.
____________________

Notes:

° a red-light version of a Monty Python sketch — And you can even say, "Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 12, just down the corridor."

Works Cited:

The Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 4, 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

Saletan, William. "Drones Are Death Warrants". Slate. October 3, 2011. Slate.com. October 4, 2011. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_strikes_on_u_s_citizens_due_process_wo.html

Brenan, John O. "Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and Laws". Harvard Law School. September 16, 2011. WhiteHouse.gov. October 4, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ngthening-our-security-adhering-our-values-an

 

Please point out where the phrase "bearing arms" appears in my post, or the material linked therein.

That said, Al-Awlaki himself claimed to have materially participated in various actual terrorist attacks.

The implication was that the Yemeni government doesn't actually have the power to police its population in the relevant, regardless of what its inclinations may have been.

That's the thing - the Yemeni government issued an order to bring him in "dead or alive" back in 2010, but were never able to follow through. If they'd had the ability to actually arrest this guy, he'd have already been in Yemeni custody long before the drone strike got him. Instead, they tried him in absentia.

Or, none of the talking weasels you find it convenient to cite, anyway.

How about you can the hypothetical nationalist polemics, and stick to the actual issues?

 

That was the US government's legality line, not "Quad's." It's not a position I'm advocating - it's the position advocated by the actual executive branch ordering the actual drone strikes. It is the substance of what you should be criticizing, if you think the procedure for such is problematic.

And, again, it doesn't mention the phrase "bearing arms" anywhere.