Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 262
Like Tree96Likes

Thread: Obama using drone attacks to kill Americans, american children and "first responders"

  1. #1 Obama using drone attacks to kill Americans, american children and "first responders" 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    aclu.com
    "The paper's basic contention is that the government has the authority to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen if "an informed, high-level official" deems him to present a "continuing" threat to the country. This sweeping authority is said to exist even if the threat presented isn't imminent in any ordinary sense of that word, even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield. The white paper purports to recognize some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are so vague and elastic that they will be easily manipulated.

    The paper initially suggests, for example, that the government's authority to use lethal force is limited to people who present "imminent" threats, but it then proceeds to redefine the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning. The paper does something similar with the phrase "capture is infeasible." It initially sounds like a real limitation but by page 8 it seems to mean only that the government won't use lethal force if capture is more convenient. It's the language of limits—but without any real restrictions.


    Even more problematic, the paper contends that the limits on the government's claimed authority are not enforceable in any court. ("There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations.") According to the white paper, the government has the authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens without presenting evidence to a judge before the fact or after, and indeed without even acknowledging to the courts or to the public that the authority has been exercised. Without saying so explicitly, the government claims the authority to kill American terrorism suspects in secret."

    Obama murder's 16 year old american child born in Colorado
    "Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda suspect born in the US state of New Mexico, was killed by an unmanned plane in September 2011.

    Samir Khan, a naturalised US citizen who produced an online magazine promoting al-Qaeda's ideology, died in the same missile strike.

    Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was born in Colorado, was killed a month later."

    Obama loves to send two missiles (double-tap) at people spread out over a short time to kill firefighter, rescuers, doctors, etc..
    "These "double-tap" attacks end up hitting "first responders" to the rubble and ashes that are left over after the initial strike, and Begley's tweets reveal that the U.S. has been intentionally targeting funerals and civilian rescuers.

    While these tactics, when discussed at all (Obama's drone program is shrouded in an intense level of secrecy), are justified under the rubric of "national security," even the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have classified "double-taps" as staples of terrorists, not the repertoire of supposed constitutional republics.

    So while the "double-tap" method may please the likes of Hamas and the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph, these attacks, even by the most broad definitions of international law, are blatant war crimes."


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Interesting reading thanks. I guess it sucks to be a terrorist living in a country that won't give you safe harbor.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Interesting reading thanks. I guess it sucks to be a terrorist living in a country that won't give you safe harbor.
    Who says they are terrorist? Do not have to be a terrorist, and Obama does not need to prove the people he kills or killed are anything or doing anything at all, he says he gets to kill them if he wants to, and he is killing Americans and American children.

    Can Obama prove the american child he murdered is/was a terrorist? Child terrorist? Kill them all? Kill the american children? I would like to see that proof, but he says he gets to kill Americans and American children and he don't have to have any proof that they are going to attack or even planning to attack someone else.. let alone give anyone else any proof. So Obama is killing american children for their opinions? For the words a child speaks?

    Child murderers are pretty sick. Right? To see a child, to target and mark a child for death, then murder that child, is one of the sickest things a person can do? It is pretty disturbing IMO.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 5th, 2013 at 03:34 PM.
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Who says they are terrorist? Do not have to be a terrorist, ...
    Perhaps you are correct. Anwar al-Aulaqi was more likely vacationing in Yemen due to all the "snow-birds" taking vacation this time of year.

    What did the host country have to say about this?

    The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[26][27] U.S. officials alleged that in 2009, al-Aulaqi was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[28][29] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[30][31]
    In April 2010, the United States President Barack Obama placed al-Aulaqi on a list of people whom the United States Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.[32][33][34] The "targeted killing" of an American citizen, sometimes described as an assassination order, was unprecedented. Al-Aulaqi's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court.[32][34][35][36] Al-Aulaqi was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[26] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him,[37] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[38] before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on 30 September 2011.[39] Two weeks later, al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[40][41][42] Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[43]
    I am aware of is that the USA military does take steps not to inflict civilians as a general procedure, but sometimes there are civilian deaths. It is unfortunate that the 16 year died for being with a father that associated with Al-Qaeda. I blame his father for putting his child in harm's way for participating with a terrorist group that has attack the sovereignty of the USA. I don't know the operational particulars which led to his son's death, perhaps facial recognition software mistakenly identified his son as the father. There could be other more rational explanations than "Obama is killing american children for their opinions? For the words a child speaks?" Since there hasn't a been reports of massive amounts of teenagers dying from drone attacks in the news, I'm skeptical about your claims. By all means impress me with verifiable reports of massive amounts of children dying of hellfire missiles from drones sanctioned by the USA government for only speaking an opinion. I doubt that you will produce such evidence. You usually post an irrational opinion that comports with your political ideology though is lacking the necessary evidence.

    You have every right to defend terrorist organizations if you choose, even Al-Qaeda. If you want to shed tears for all the family and friends of terrorists, indulge yourself. I'll save mine for civilian victims of terrorist acts.




    Anwar al-Aulaqi
    Last edited by MrMojo1; February 5th, 2013 at 07:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Obama is killing them? Really? I wonder where he finds the time with all the other presidental duties he has to do. Shouldn't you be targeting the foreign policy rather then the individual that inherited the mess of Afghanistan?
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    And people wonder how the sickest of crimes or atrocities are committed with so many people watching on and/or actively supporting them.. There are two examples above.

    Where is the proof? The court of law or the murdering and assassinating wishes and desires of Obama?
    I do not care what the government claims an american has done, they do not have the right to refuse to prove it and then murder Americans.

    The policy is Obama's, it is Obama's kill list's, it is Obama murdering these Americans.

    Obama also killed that american boy, a child... they found him, targeted him, and then blew that child to pieces with rockets. Obama did that. Who does these type of things? Who murders children? Who assassinates children and who tells someone, after assassinating an american child, that the child has no rights, can be murdered and that no one, and I mean no one, can dare tell Obama he cant and should not be murdering children... American Children.

    I want to see the evidence, proof and right that Obama has/had in order to kill/murder/assassinate that american child. I do not think there is anything that Obama has that justifies his murdering of that child. It is sick. It is twisted. It is disgusting.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 5th, 2013 at 11:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Robert Taylor has been writing for PolicyMic since January 2011. He spends his time writing, ranting, studying, protesting stupid wars, and advoc...
    This is the source? Not all that credible.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    The real tragedy with the drones is all the innocent bystanders, and how it affects their lives. CBC has been reporting on this for well over a year now. It must be awful living like that. Drones flying over your head all day long, never knowing when one of them is going to fire a missile.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    How many drones are armed and able to launch missiles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    How many drones are armed and able to launch missiles?
    Wish I could say, what I can say is that I've heard of plenty of deaths of foreign citizens on their own soil - and only a few "terrorists". Then again, maybe my CBC is putting some serious spin on this ball.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I am aware of is that the USA military does take steps not to inflict civilians as a general procedure, but sometimes there are civilian deaths. It is unfortunate that the 16 year died for being with a father that associated with Al-Qaeda. I blame his father for putting his child in harm's way for participating with a terrorist group that has attack the sovereignty of the USA. I don't know the operational particulars which led to his son's death, perhaps facial recognition software mistakenly identified his son as the father. There could be other more rational explanations than "Obama is killing american children for their opinions? For the words a child speaks?"

    Anwar al-Aulaqi
    His son was not with his father. His father was assassinated by Obama weeks before Obama specifically targeted and murdered the american boy. Obama hunted that child down and murdered him. There is no way around that mojo.

    NBC News

    Young Turks


    Obama had them track that american boy, decided the restaurant was a good place, had someone point and lead that drones missiles on the child, and murdered that child.

    What does the Obama admin say? "Should have had a different father". Obama murdered that american child. It is sick and disgusting what Obama did and has done. I ask you again, what kind of person murders children? What kind of american president believes he has the right to murder and assassinate Americans and american children, and does so, and believes no one, no court, no authority has the right to question him, stop him or demand proof and/or justification for him killing and murdering Americans and American children?

    It is sick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    If the american child was saying good bye at the restaurant to his cousin, who was also a child, because he was going back to his home in The United States, as reported, why did Obama not just have the child arrest the minute he got off the plane?

    I would bet anything that Obama had nothing on this child.. No proof of anything that even warranted arresting him or holding him when he landed, let alone justification or the right to murder the american child. Just cold blooded murder. Maybe to shut him up? Keep him out of America?

    Why murder him? Why not wait for him to land and arrest him? If you have enough to murder the boy, then clearly you should have more than enough to arrest him, right?
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 6th, 2013 at 01:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    You got Obama on the brain, do you feel it would be different with a different administration? So if the boy was not an American would it make it alright? I am having trouble sifting through your vitriol.

    Drones are making air strikes, how many are not being revealed. The issue people seem to have glued on to is the loss of civilian life in the attacks and legality of using drones to do it. It seems to me they are missing the point completely. The issue is not if the missile was fired from a drone. Civilians die all the time in air strikes from piloted planes. It doesn't matter if the plane is being flown from a cockpit or from a remote location, mistakes are made, especially at the speed an altitude of a plane or drone.

    The issue is whether the attacks should be targeting the locations they are targeting and is the proper due diligence being done to determine the target locations. Battle field support is one thing, hunting down the enemy in towns is another. You better be sure you have the right building.

    This is not a new issue however. There are cases from all the recent wars where civilians were killed by air strikes. There was a notable one from WWII where a school of children was taken out during a raid.
    KALSTER and MrMojo1 like this.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Acts of treason do not necessarily differentiate between age and nationality. A citizen of the U.S. that acts in a treasonous manner will draw attention to himself.

    And what was Abdulrahman doing to draw attention to himself? He was declaring support for Al Qaida and demonstrating with propaganda within the U.S.A to acquire further support for Al Qaida.

    Well, is it not acceptable in the United States to have political/religious freedom in affiliation and to demonstrate? Yes. But only within reason of law and when one demonstrates treasonous ideals or properties of terrorism, then they have gone above and beyond the reason of law.

    See my sig; inter arma enim silent leges

    I think part of the Hullaballoo is based on this rather foaming at the mouth hatred of Obama I often see. Claims about his birth certificate and what have you, I have never seen a president come under such extensive and absurd rumors. And I'm not even a democrat and I never voted for the guy...
    To my own shame... I did not bother to vote because I was unhappy with all the candidates.

    Should the kid have been blow up? I don't think so based on my principles.

    But here is an important point: I have no idea what the circumstances were. I have no idea what actually happened. Searching online, I see a whole lotta spin and very little reporting.

    I even tried factcheck.org, but they don't seem to have picked up the story yet. I submitted on "Ask Factcheck" the question about Abdulrahman.

    Until more information is available, I think people need to reserve judgment.
    I also think people need to prepare their minds for one of the most basic and cruel parts of our world: That sometimes children pick up arms.

    During the Vietnam war, it is said that babies were hooked up to explosives. The penalty of war is that children and innocent civilians WILL be killed.
    It is this penalty that we should unite against more than anything else. Yet, when a child picks up arms and becomes a threat- they are a threat to be eliminated and age is not an excuse when they move to attack others.
    He drew a lot of attention to himself by promoting and supporting Al Quaida ideals and spreading propaganda. In spite of some spin claiming he was "just a kid and while his father was a terrorist, does not mean the kid was" while technically true, the support the kid showed for AL Quaida suggests that father and son were terrorists.

    No one in this thread really has Any Idea what he was actually doing overseas. There are claims made that add up to nothing bit Spin.

    Until more information is available, the "spin" and claims and declarations of indignation should just sit down, shut up and put their table pounding fists quietly in their laps.
    Darkhorse and MrMojo1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Then put aside the fact that it is Obama and imagine that a Republican is killing Americans without due process. That is the real issue. Do we have constitutional rights, or don't we?
    KALSTER, John Galt and gonzales56 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then put aside the fact that it is Obama and imagine that a Republican is killing Americans without due process. That is the real issue. Do we have constitutional rights, or don't we?
    I am in strong agreement on this one. I don't give a rats tail about the partisanship. My own political affiliation is a minority.
    The primary question in my mind supersedes even "constitutional" (Though, I think the Constitution of the U.S. is not in question, but Geneva Conventions) concerns and addresses whether or not the strike was necessary at all.

    Say, for hypothetical example that Abdulrahman was overseas planning a concise violent/armed strike on U.S. soil or was overseas in order to flee arrest.
    If he was involved in planning (We Do not Know) then such a strike may have been necessary to Protect U.S. Lives. Which, as far as I am concerned, overrides anyone in any other country telling us what to do. 'Due Process' almost always takes a back seat when violence is about to ensue. For example, shooting a rapist who crawled into your window. You cannot exactly grab him, throw him on trial, gather a jury and finally sentence him to a self defensive shooting. He'll have raped and killed you months before the trial finally reached the bench.

    Say, for hypothetical example that Abdulrahman was overseas innocently visiting family, then I do not see any reason whatsoever for the strike. Was it a mistake? Was it due to his Al Quaida connections?

    More information is needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then put aside the fact that it is Obama and imagine that a Republican is killing Americans without due process. That is the real issue. Do we have constitutional rights, or don't we?
    Short answer is yes. The reason has nothing to do with the constitution, but of sovereignty. When a nation or non-nation of people set to attack any sovereign nation (Al-Qaeda vs USA, Hezbollah vs Israel) that nation can act in it's interest of self-defense. Al-Qaeda has put much effort to become enemy against the USA, and the drone attacks are one many methods to destroy an enemy. When it comes defending the sovereignty of a nation all options are on the table.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    You don't give up your citizenship by traveling to a foreign country. Take a look at the guidelines for killing people, then imagine that it is President Bush (or Palin or Romney) killing people for political reasons.
    Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
    When is it okay to kill people without a trial?
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Irrelevant to the issue at had. Citizenship status is irrelevant. The drone attacks are not political attacks.

    Obama Administration lawyers say killing an American would be lawful if an "informed, high-level official" determined three things:
    1. That the target is a ranking Al-Qaeda figure.
    2. That he or she poses "an imminent threat of violent attack" against America.
    3. That capture is not "feasible."
    By being an Al-Qaeda figure you have become a member in an organization that has a history and on-going operations attacking the USA and allies. If you are a citizen and become a member of Al-Qaeda, then you have effectively become a traitor. This is a national defense issue. When it comes behavior in warfare, there is the Geneva Convention guidelines. I am not aware of any protocol in the treatment of terrorists that has been adopted by the United Nations.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You don't give up your citizenship by traveling to a foreign country.
    When is it okay to kill people without a trial?
    I already answered all of this.
    One, I do not give a rats tail if it was Bush or Obama. I do not care. Either way. Got it? I have No Affiliation nor preference for Republican or Democratic parties.

    I also answered when it's reasonable to kill without trial. Note that I use the word "reasonable" and not the word, "ok" to do it...

    I also answered about citizenship in relation to treason. No one ever made the claim that anyone gives up their citizenship when they travel overseas. Why did you even ask such a question? Are you attempting to stir up anger in response to such an invalid and absurd statement? Are you hoping for an emotional reaction by presenting such an irrelevant and nonsensical statement?
    You give a link with a title talking about 'twisting' things and yet, your post did a whole lot of twisting.

    Harold, if you cannot control your emotional reactions in order to make clear, concise posts that accurately reflect the discussion, the thread would be much better off and able to proceed on topic with greater ease if you refrain from posting such inflammatory comments in them that only serve as a distraction.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The castle of Lincoln sits atop a tall hill with commanding views over the surrounding country. Inside the central keep, is a small room, isolated from the outside and lit only by very subdued lighting. In the middle of the room is a glass container, its interior temperature and humidity precisely controlled. Visible through the glass is one of the six remaining copies of the Magna Carta Liberatum.

    This was signed on the windswept meadows of Runnymede by King John on 15th June 1215 in the presence of barons with whom he had negotiated its contents. While the intent of the charter was to protect those elite barons it came to represent the allocation of rights to all citizens of a country and informed the writers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Almost eight hundred years later is disturbing to see that the same battles have to be fought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    A persons "rights" are just that- Rights, and are not totalitarian.
    This means that while Joe Bob that attacks and rapes and murders victims may have granted rights under law, those rights come to a halt on the rights of the victim that does, in an act of self defense, kill Joe Bob that attacked her with intent.

    What is not yet established is whether or not the person in question had Intent.

    Everything else is not relevant until that is established.

    Those posters that are speculating and accusing and tilting at windmills need to hold off- until the information needed to discuss this topic is available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    The point you fail to see is that without a gathering of peoples who have identified themselves as a nation, there is no Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, or Constitution to apply rights/privileges to. Without a "we the people" then rights/privileges are only individual requests which can be varied and ignored by other individuals. Sovereignty takes priority. The continuation of said sovereign state is an issue of national security.

    Even the Magna Carta didn't take priority when the people of England were attack by the Spaniards and their Armada during the undeclared Anglo-Spanish War.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Harold, if you cannot control your emotional reactions in order to make clear, concise posts that accurately reflect the discussion, the thread would be much better off and able to proceed on topic with greater ease if you refrain from posting such inflammatory comments in them that only serve as a distraction.
    Come on, now. There's nothing emotional or inflammatory about it. Can't you see that such nebulous guidelines could lead to abuse? This is why we have laws for the protection of individual rights.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Where is the proof this american child was fixing to attack the US? Where is the evidence that this american child was a senior Al Quada member? Where is the proof that this kid could not have been arrested, if Obama had anything on him, when he landed in America (he was coming back to his home in america right before Obama murdered him). There is no evidence, no proof of an attack, there is nothing.. Obama murdered the kid.

    It is sick.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 6th, 2013 at 04:02 AM.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Where is the proof this american child was fixing to attack the US?
    There isn't. Where is the proof that he "simply was saying goodbye to his cousin before going home" as I've seen claimed?
    The thing is- We Do Not Know. We Need To Find Out.
    Not spin the claims to the most favorable position of a pre-chosen argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Where is the evidence that this american child was a senior Al Quada member?
    I'm not aware of any. And is it a requirement that he be a SENIOR?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Where is the proof that this kid could not have been arrested, if Obama had anything on him, when he landed in America (he was coming back to his home in america right before Obama murdered him).
    I am, again, unaware of any. However, I'm saying that jumping to conclusions or claiming otherwise without proper information is just as invalid.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Obama says
    I have no evidence that Obama said any of that. Don't get me wrong - I am all for holding him accountable. I am not all for doing so dishonestly.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Obama has refused to give any evidence or proof of anything. Obama murdered that boy
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is sick. It is murder, the assassination, of a child and it is disgusting.
    Please provide evidence to support your claims.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Can't you see that such nebulous guidelines could lead to abuse? This is why we have laws for the protection of individual rights.
    I can see that no one claimed that he gave up his citizenship by traveling and I can also see that it's not very relevant--- Had he done the same thing to a non-citizen, should the effect not be the same?

    The only point I had made that if evidence is presented that he had committed treason, then citizenship is not going to save him.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    The point you fail to see is that without a gathering of peoples who have identified themselves as a nation, there is no Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, or Constitution to apply rights/privileges to. Without a "we the people" then rights/privileges are only individual requests which can be varied and ignored by other individuals. Sovereignty takes priority. The continuation of said sovereign state is an issue of national security.

    Even the Magna Carta didn't take priority when the people of England were attack by the Spaniards and their Armada during the undeclared Anglo-Spanish War.
    Americans are the people, and Obama does not have the right nor authority to kill americans unless they pose an imminent, real time threat to the safety of others. However, Obama is murdering and assassinating Americans without a shred of proof or evidence that they are an imminent, real time threat, to anyone... It is sick. It is disgusting. Again, who murders people? Who murders americans? Who murders children?

    You wont deal with the reality or gravity of the situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Americans are the people, and Obama does not have the right nor authority to kill americans unless they pose an imminent, real time threat to the safety of others.
    As our society stands- I agree with this statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    However, Obama is murdering and assassinating Americans without a shred of proof or evidence that they are an imminent, real time threat, to anyone... It is sick. It is disgusting.
    This is where the trouble is- Can you support your accusation of murder? That a death occurred is not proof of murder.
    You must provide evidence, not speculations, suspicions or unsupported claims. If accusing the man of Murder, you must demonstrate that charge as accurate.

    I think that the jumping to conclusions is politically motivated. The hell with the politics. The only thing that matters is: Are the charges founded?
    MrMojo1 and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Where is the proof this american child was fixing to attack the US?
    There isn't. Where is the proof that he "simply was saying goodbye to his cousin before going home" as I've seen claimed?
    The thing is- We Do Not Know. We Need To Find Out.
    Not spin the claims to the most favorable position of a pre-chosen argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Where is the evidence that this american child was a senior Al Quada member?
    I'm not aware of any. And is it a requirement that he be a SENIOR?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Where is the proof that this kid could not have been arrested, if Obama had anything on him, when he landed in America (he was coming back to his home in america right before Obama murdered him).
    I am, again, unaware of any. However, I'm saying that jumping to conclusions or claiming otherwise without proper information is just as invalid.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Obama says
    I have no evidence that Obama said any of that. Don't get me wrong - I am all for holding him accountable. I am not all for doing so dishonestly.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Obama has refused to give any evidence or proof of anything. Obama murdered that boy
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is sick. It is murder, the assassination, of a child and it is disgusting.
    Please provide evidence to support your claims.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Can't you see that such nebulous guidelines could lead to abuse? This is why we have laws for the protection of individual rights.
    I can see that no one claimed that he gave up his citizenship by traveling and I can also see that it's not very relevant--- Had he done the same thing to a non-citizen, should the effect not be the same?

    The only point I had made that if evidence is presented that he had committed treason, then citizenship is not going to save him.
    Lets do this.. Maybe you can understand it this way.

    Was the 16 year old american boy killed by Obama? Yes
    Why? Obama refuses to tell anyone why and claims he does not have to tell anyone anything.

    The leaked documents show that Obama is killing Americans without proof, without evidence, without them being an imminent threat, and that the president believes no one has the right to question him or stop him from murdering Americans and American children.

    Deal with the issue and stop trying to say you are waiting for Obama to tell you why he murdered these Americans. Obama will not tell you or anyone else anything at all other than he has the right to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Americans are the people, and Obama does not have the right nor authority to kill americans unless they pose an imminent, real time threat to the safety of others.
    As our society stands- I agree with this statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    However, Obama is murdering and assassinating Americans without a shred of proof or evidence that they are an imminent, real time threat, to anyone... It is sick. It is disgusting.
    This is where the trouble is- Can you support your accusation of murder? That a death occurred is not proof of murder.
    You must provide evidence, not speculations, suspicions or unsupported claims. If accusing the man of Murder, you must demonstrate that charge as accurate.

    I think that the jumping to conclusions is politically motivated. The hell with the politics. The only thing that matters is: Are the charges founded?
    It is easy..

    Obama targeted and then killed the american boy with drone rockets. The Boy is dead. Obama refuses to say why or give legal proof and evidence as to why he killed the boy. In any and all American jurisdictions this is murder. You have to have a lawful reason for killing someone, and if you do not, if you cannot provide the evidence, then you have murdered someone.

    You keep defending Obama's actions, yet it is Obama who has not been able to produce any evidence or proof to justify targeting and killing the american child. Nothing. Not a single thing. In america, that is murder and anyone else would be arrested for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Otherwise you have no evidence of murder. Just your ranting about Obama again, nothing new to see here. Moving along.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    Was the 16 year old american boy killed by Obama? Yes
    Though this may appear in your mind as a fact, it isn't. Do you have evidence of Obama directing killing this boy? If you do produce it.
    Do you have evidence Obama issued a direct command to kill this particular boy? If you do produce it.

    Until you provide such evidence to convincing prove murder, it just another one of your "Obama Bad, Gonzales must smash" posts.
    Darkhorse and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    The legitimacy of using drones to persecute the war against terrorist is really the only question here--in wars there are no trials--and also no "imminent threat" clause that a few poster has wrongly used as a criteria. The "boy" was of military age and certainly quite capable of acting as a terrorist, and being labeled as such, and targeted as part of that war. The specific reasons are quite likely classified. We might get a sanitized unclassified version eventually.
    KALSTER, MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I see no issue with drones, really... it's just the next logical step.

    Let's be blunt- kill them while putting no pilot of your own at risk. It has a point.
    Darkhorse likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    I agree with Neverfly that drones are just another weapon. How are they different from a locally piloted plane or an artilliery barrage?
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I'm wondering if some people think the drone is actually making decisions and launching weapons on it's own?

    The drone is not attacking anything. It's the remote operator who fires the drones weapons.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    it is Obama who has not been able to produce any evidence or proof to justify targeting and killing the american.
    A possible reason not to provide evidence is that it would reveal classified sources.

    However, the idea of the executive branch being able to kill an American in an apparently shadowy way should be somewhat troubling to anyone who understands that, regardless of how you feel about the current administration, history has shown that government's abuse power and it sets a bad precedent for future administrations which may or may not be altruistic.

    On the other hand, in modern warfare, a horrible attack could conceivably be planned and launched by just a few people from the other side of the world. This is difficult for the courts to handle.

    I'd be more comfortable if the executive branch was at least breifing someone from the other branches (perhaps the Speaker of the House and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You don't give up your citizenship by traveling to a foreign country. Take a look at the guidelines for killing people, then imagine that it is President Bush (or Palin or Romney) killing people for political reasons.
    Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
    When is it okay to kill people without a trial?
    Your country does it constantly.

    Osama was killed without a trial and Americans from both sides of the political spectrum were jumping up and down with joy about that. How many missiles were fired into Iraq in the 'Shock and Awe' campaign in America's bid to kill Saddam? No one complained that they were trying to kill him without trial.

    Or is it a double standard? You can kill everyone else, just not Americans who openly declare themselves as terrorists and are part of terrorist organisations?

    I personally find the prospect of killing anyone without trial by bombs or missiles to be obscene. However I find the hypocrisy of this particular debate to be ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The legitimacy of using drones to persecute the war against terrorist is really the only question here--in wars there are no trials--and also no "imminent threat" clause that a few poster has wrongly used as a criteria. The "boy" was of military age and certainly quite capable of acting as a terrorist, and being labeled as such, and targeted as part of that war. The specific reasons are quite likely classified. We might get a sanitized unclassified version eventually.
    16 is not military age, the american boy was not a terrorist, nor had he committed any terrorist acts. He was not targeting the US, he was not at war with the US, and Obama tracked this american kid, targeted him, then murdered him. Those of you who keep attacking and trying to paint a dead american child as a horrible enemy of his own country and a terrorist, you need to prove it. I know you don't mind Obama killing american children, I know you believe he don't have to prove anything, I know you all have no shame in attacking and blaming the dead american child but, many folks, folks like myself, do not like it nor condone it, and we are not going to drag the dead american boy through the mud for Obama's sake.

    To claim the boy was a terrorist, which Obama has not, to claim that the boy was in the mist of an attack on the US, which Obama has not, is just pathetic. It is a sick way to condone and ignore the reality that Obama murders Americans illegally and in cold blood.

    I am waiting for you all to prove you claims about the american child. I am waiting for your proof that Obama did not murder this child. Obama murders the child then you all attack the child. What is wrong with some of you?

    What terrorist attack did this child commit? What terror plot was he involved in? What al quada cell was he part of? Why make this silly stuff up about an american child murdered by Obama just to try and protect Obama..? No shame? No decency? No moral compass?

    If Obama had any proof, any justification for killing that boy, he would have released it already. He has nothing, and this is why he is claiming he doesn't have to justify the murder of that boy. This why he claims no one has the authority to question him at all about killing the american child. This is why he wont even level one thing against the boy.

    Sick. Disgusting. You all keep blaming and attacking the american child and praising and justifying Obama, it just makes you even more wrong.

    Every american between the age of 18 and 35, as you put it, are capable of being or becoming a terrorist, and Obama or any president does not have the right to murder them because of that. That is not justification. In your mind it might be but, it is not justification.

    Prove the boy is even a terrorist.. Forget the fact that you cant prove the other things, just show that he was a terrorist... Please. You cant and Obama cant. Obama has not even dared to call the boy a terrorist. He knows the minute he opens his mouth about the boy and make any claims it can be used against him. Obama will not say anything concerning that boy but that no one has a right to question him about the boy and that he will not say anything about it.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 6th, 2013 at 08:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    I personally find the prospect of killing anyone without trial by bombs or missiles to be obscene. However I find the hypocrisy of this particular debate to be ridiculous.
    What about a situation where a nation's shores are being invaded by foreign troops? I think most people agree the nation can defend itself and you obviously can't conduct a trial in the middle of a beach battle. Whether the weapon used is a gun or a bomb doesn't much matter I would think.

    However, this becomes tricky when the nation kills its own citizen in self-defense because the citizen has certain rights that may not legally apply to a foreign person. Hence the debate.

    Also, remember that modern warfare will not necessarily take place on a traditional battlefield (think of a hacker initiating a massive cyberattack). I would argue there are not many good ways to solve the problem of a citizen planning attacks against his own nation from a non-allied foreign nation. Certainly putting boots on the ground against the foreign nations will to capture the person would be controversial at best.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    16 is not military age
    Where?

    My uncle enlisted at the age of 16 during WWII.

    A 16 year old is quite capable of committing murder and being tried for the crime as an adult. To harp on the word 'child' is disingenuous.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    16 is not military age
    Where?

    My uncle enlisted at the age of 16 during WWII.

    A 16 year old is quite capable of committing murder and being tried for the crime as an adult. To harp on the word 'child' is disingenuous.
    It is not military age in the US and the american child Obama brutally attacked and killed was not in the military. He was not a soldier. He was not on the battle field. What does any of these type of things have to do with the boy other than some of you trying to slander and attack the poor dead child in an attempt to protect and justify Obama?

    Obama has been claiming for years that he cannot kill americans unless they are senior members of a terrorist organization, unless they pose an imminent threat and if they cannot possibly be arrested or captured. Of course, Obama lied about all this, and the papers leaked to NBC show that Obama was lying through his teeth to the american people about what he was doing and how he was doing it.

    This boy, that american child, was nothing but an innocent american child, and there is not a single shred of evidence that states or shows anything else. We know now, that this is the type of Americans Obama murders. He murders american children who are not terrorist, who are not an imminent threat and he murders them because he has to do it before they get back to america where he has no clear safe way to harm them, murder them or arrest them.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 6th, 2013 at 08:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    This boy, that american child, was nothing but an innocent american child
    Just an empty, blatant appeal to emotionalism.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    gonzales56 if you stop saying Obama this an Obama that, people may listen to your arguments more. Attack the policy not the person. Attacking the person just makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind. The decisions that are being made do not reside in one person, after all you don't have a King do you?Many European countries have compulsory military service, so yes 16 is the age of a soldier. Child soldiers in Africa are even younger, you are just as dead when shot by a 70 year old as a 16 year old.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    16 is not military age
    Where?

    My uncle enlisted at the age of 16 during WWII.

    A 16 year old is quite capable of committing murder and being tried for the crime as an adult. To harp on the word 'child' is disingenuous.
    Good example. Lots of examples similar including many that some people might already know...such as David Hackworth, who entered at age 14 and become one of the most decorated soldiers in American history. The min age is now 17, though I'm pretty sure than must be 18 before completing training and being deployable. And yes, many state legal systems begin to consider 14 sufficient to make some adult decisions.

    --
    The only ones who can change the rules is Congress. They gave this authority back in 2001 with the Authorization of military force which gave specific authority for the President to deter and act against international and domestics threats abroad. Given the boy was in the very same organization with a long track record of terror planned and executed events both overseas and abroad, the justification is relatively straight forward under US law--it was a lawful hit. International law is probably another matter.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    gonzales56 if you stop saying Obama this an Obama that, people may listen to your arguments more. Attack the policy not the person. Attacking the person just makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind. The decisions that are being made do not reside in one person, after all you don't have a King do you?Many European countries have compulsory military service, so yes 16 is the age of a soldier. Child soldiers in Africa are even younger, you are just as dead when shot by a 70 year old as a 16 year old.
    The policy is Obama's, he is in charge of it, and everyone in the admin is doing what Obama wants them to do. It is ignorant to believe that Obama's kill list belongs to someone else and that Obama's drone strikes are being dictated to him and not the other way around. It is ignorant to believe that it is not Obama in charge, approving and making the kill list's, getting briefings all the time about the targets on his kill list and giving the OK to kill everyone on his list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    So you live in a dictatorship then, interesting. Did you feel the same way when Bush was on the throne?
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post
    What about a situation where a nation's shores are being invaded by foreign troops? I think most people agree the nation can defend itself and you obviously can't conduct a trial in the middle of a beach battle. Whether the weapon used is a gun or a bomb doesn't much matter I would think.

    However, this becomes tricky when the nation kills its own citizen in self-defense because the citizen has certain rights that may not legally apply to a foreign person. Hence the debate.

    Also, remember that modern warfare will not necessarily take place on a traditional battlefield (think of a hacker initiating a massive cyberattack). I would argue there are not many good ways to solve the problem of a citizen planning attacks against his own nation from a non-allied foreign nation. Certainly putting boots on the ground against the foreign nations will to capture the person would be controversial at best.
    I do not disagree with you in that regard.

    What I find hypocritical is the notion that the US Government, past and present, targeting individuals and no one says boo. But a known terrorist who is an American citizen? Suddenly this is a bad thing?

    This whole debate is a double standard. The OP is worded in a way as to state that the Obama Government was deliberately targeting children and first responder's, using very emotive language. The fact of the matter is, Anwar's son was deemed to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time. I believe Americans refer to this as "collateral damage". That is the excuse given for when American forces kill civilians in its war on terror, isn't it? What did Reagan refer to the killing of Gaddafi's 4 year old daughter when he ordered the bombing of Gaddafi's residential home, where his children lived?

    You do kill your own citizens for reasons of self defense all the time. Are you telling me that if police or federal agents came upon the Fort Hood shooter while he was on his rampage, that they would not have taken a shot? How about John Allen Muhammad and his 17 year old accomplice?

    You see, I find this whole debate to be hypocritical because the US has no issue with bombing other people they deem to be terrorists and any civilians, young or old killed in the process are deemed "collateral damage". Those individuals were killed without trial and the treatment of suspected terrorists goes against the Geneva Convention and a plethora of other international laws. I guess it is a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    This boy, that american child, was nothing but an innocent american child
    Just an empty, blatant appeal to emotionalism.
    You have proof to the contrary? Why do you keep attacking the dead american boy and accusing the boy of things that you have no proof of? Does it make you feel better to tell yourself that the boy was a horrible evil boy, even though he was not? Does it make it easier for you to come to terms with Obama killing him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    This is just a political agenda masquerading as caring outrage.
    Darkhorse, MrMojo1 and RedPanda like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post
    What about a situation where a nation's shores are being invaded by foreign troops? I think most people agree the nation can defend itself and you obviously can't conduct a trial in the middle of a beach battle. Whether the weapon used is a gun or a bomb doesn't much matter I would think.

    However, this becomes tricky when the nation kills its own citizen in self-defense because the citizen has certain rights that may not legally apply to a foreign person. Hence the debate.

    Also, remember that modern warfare will not necessarily take place on a traditional battlefield (think of a hacker initiating a massive cyberattack). I would argue there are not many good ways to solve the problem of a citizen planning attacks against his own nation from a non-allied foreign nation. Certainly putting boots on the ground against the foreign nations will to capture the person would be controversial at best.
    I do not disagree with you in that regard.

    What I find hypocritical is the notion that the US Government, past and present, targeting individuals and no one says boo. But a known terrorist who is an American citizen? Suddenly this is a bad thing?

    This whole debate is a double standard. The OP is worded in a way as to state that the Obama Government was deliberately targeting children and first responder's, using very emotive language. The fact of the matter is, Anwar's son was deemed to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time. I believe Americans refer to this as "collateral damage". That is the excuse given for when American forces kill civilians in its war on terror, isn't it? What did Reagan refer to the killing of Gaddafi's 4 year old daughter when he ordered the bombing of Gaddafi's residential home, where his children lived?

    You do kill your own citizens for reasons of self defense all the time. Are you telling me that if police or federal agents came upon the Fort Hood shooter while he was on his rampage, that they would not have taken a shot? How about John Allen Muhammad and his 17 year old accomplice?

    You see, I find this whole debate to be hypocritical because the US has no issue with bombing other people they deem to be terrorists and any civilians, young or old killed in the process are deemed "collateral damage". Those individuals were killed without trial and the treatment of suspected terrorists goes against the Geneva Convention and a plethora of other international laws. I guess it is a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
    The wrong place wrong time was Obama's first Story. It has been widely reported that Ibrahim al-Banna was nowhere near there and that he is still alive to this day. Obama admin's second story was that the boy was a 21 year old militant, then his grandfather released his birth certificate showing he was a 16 year old american child and said that he was not a militant, and the Obama admin shut up and has not said a word since.

    This american boy was on his way back to america, and Obama murdered him for only reasons Obama knows. It is sad.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 6th, 2013 at 09:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    You are obviously fixated with Obama. Freud would love you.It really is too bad that you do not feel able to participate in a meaningful debate on public policy without throwing mud at the current president. This could have been such a good discussion too. :-(
    Lynx_Fox, MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    gonzales56, you really are just ranting about Obama. And that's no crime, really... I don't think it's so personal as that as it could have been anyone that you disagreed with politically heavily.
    Everyone understands at this point that you wish our current president was not president.

    It make sense that you feel outrage.

    But can you try, at least, to discuss the topic at hand? Let it not be about Obama, (whether it's valid to be or not) but about the very thing that you think is outrageous?
    I'm not saying that you cannot disagree with the president but it's been thoroughly hashed over at this point and I can empathize because I can easily get just as carried away- and am doing just that with some of the leadership of this forum.

    I'm on the outside of your shoes. Others are on the outside of mine. I'm doing now, for you- what I'd appreciate others doing for me: Take a step back. Take a breath. Focus on the valid points that you think deserve investigation and discussion.
    The Obama rants are not doing what you want them to do- they are now a distraction.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    [

    The wrong place wrong time was Obama's first Story. It has been widely reported that Ibrahim al-Banna was nowhere near there and that he is still alive to this day.
    Widely reported by whom?

    All reports state that he was killed in that attack.

    Obama admin's second story was that the boy was a 21 year old militant, then his grandfather released his birth certificate showing he was a 16 year old american child and said that he was not a militant, and the Obama admin shut up and has not said a word since.
    He was a 16 year old attending a meeting with a known terrorist. Collateral damage. What makes him more special than Gaddafi's daughter, for example?

    This american boy was on his way back to america, and Obama murdered him for only reasons Obama knows. It is sad.
    Could you please point to where it says he was on his way back to America? Unless of course the Sana'a region of Yemen is now part of America?

    Why don't you like the exact same standard that the US has used in killing so many civilians in other countries being applied to American citizens? What makes you more special?

    If you want to discuss the obscene nature of the drone attacks in general, then sure. But lets not beat around the bush here. You only started this thread because you don't like Obama.
    MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Tranquille, I am going to try and explain something to you, and it is the beauty of government, even the United States government. The Stories, when they are released by the US (or through puppet factions like the Yemeni defense ministry), they are usually riddled with inconsistencies, lies and laughable excuses and explanations. Perhaps they are to cocky for their own good, who knows but, they are often easily picked apart.

    The link you posted says:
    " They said a second strike then targeted two sport utility vehicles in which al-Banna was traveling along with several others, destroying the vehicles and leaving the men's bodies charred."

    The reality of the situation concerning the american boy though is that he was hit by a drone missile while he was at a restaurant.

    NBC
    "The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant."

    Progressive.org
    "No one ever accused him of any wrongdoing. Yet on Oct. 14, 2011, a U.S. drone missile killed him and his teenage cousin while they were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant."

    ACLU
    "U.S. strikes killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s son, at an open-air restaurant."

    LA Times
    "In the case of the other two victims -- who were not the intended targets of the strikes, according to U.S. officials..... The October strike that killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Denver-born Abdul Rahman Anwar Awlaki, “killed at least seven people at an open-air restaurant,” including one other child, the lawsuit charges. The intended target was Ibraham Banna, a top Al Qaeda figure of Egyptian descent, but it was later reported that he was not among those killed by the strike."

    So we have the Yemeni Defense Ministry (US Government) release a silly statement to the press, and in it, the US claims that they killed Ibraham Banna while he was traveling in a SUV convey. Well the american boy was not in these SUVs, he was at a restaurant with other kids... And of course Ibraham Banna was not dead at the resturant, he was nowhere near it.

    Al Jazeera, in the same article you posted, states that Security Officials (US Puppets) said that the US drones hit 5 different targets. 1. a home, 2. a convey but, they do not mention the other 3 drone attacks nor what they hit.

    The american child was not killed by Obama because he was with Ibrahim al-Banna. Ibrahim al-Banna was not at the restaurant, and as I stated before, it has even been widely reported that Ibrahim al-Banna is not even dead. Either way, the boy was not collateral damage. So why kill the boy? Why target the restaurant?

    Obama wants people to believe that he just killed the boys father, and in a freak 1 in a gazillion gazillion chance, just happened to launch missiles from a drone at a restaurant his son was eating at and killed the american boy...? Oops, didn't know? Oops, I was trying to kill someone else that wasn't even at the restaurant, someone we said was traveling in a SUV convoy but, pay no mind to that.. And if you don't buy that excuse, then the american child was a terrorist, a 21 year old militant, plotting attacks against the US, an imminent threat to Americans, etc.. Oh, and by the way, you cant see no proof, I don't have to show you anything.

    How many lies do you all have to hear, see and read before you get it?
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 7th, 2013 at 01:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Tranquille, I am going to try and explain something to you, and it is the beauty of government, even the United States government. The Stories, when they are released by the US (or through puppet factions like the Yemeni defense ministry), they are usually riddled with inconsistencies, lies and laughable excuses and explanations. Perhaps they are to cocky for their own good, who knows but, they are often easily picked apart.
    Yes, lets pick it apart, shall we?



    The link you posted says:
    " They said a second strike then targeted two sport utility vehicles in which al-Banna was traveling along with several others, destroying the vehicles and leaving the men's bodies charred."

    The reality of the situation concerning the american boy though is that he was hit by a drone missile while he was at a restaurant.
    The restaurant was one of five Al Qaeda targets hit that day.

    From the link I posted above:

    Security officials said the air strike was among five that targeted al-Qaeda positions in Shabwa.
    Perhaps you can explain to me why the "American boy" was in a restaurant known to be an Al Qaeda position?



    So we have the Yemeni Defense Ministry (US Government) release a silly statement to the press, and in it, the US claims that they killed Ibraham Banna while he was traveling in a SUV convey. Well the american boy was not in these SUVs, he was at a restaurant with other kids... And of course Ibraham Banna was not dead at the resturant, he was nowhere near it.
    That is because the "American boy" was at one of the other of the five Al Qaeda targets hit that day.

    Why did you disregard that in the article?

    Al Jazeera, in the same article you posted, states that Security Officials (US Puppets) said that the US drones hit 5 different targets. 1. a home, 2. a convey but, they do not mention the other 3 drone attacks nor what they hit.
    Did you expect them to give addresses of the locations?

    The american child was not killed by Obama because he was with Ibrahim al-Banna. Ibrahim al-Banna was not at the restaurant, and as I stated before, it has even been widely reported that Ibrahim al-Banna is not even dead. Either way, the boy was not collateral damage. So why kill the boy? Why target the restaurant?
    The American "child" was killed because he was in a location known far and wide as a building frequented by Al Qaeda. His father was a spiritual leader of the terrorist organisation. Why was he there?

    Obama wants people to believe that he just killed the boys father, and in a freak 1 in a gazillion gazillion chance, just happened to launch missiles from a drone at a restaurant his son was eating at and killed the american boy...? Oops, didn't know? Oops, I was trying to kill someone else that wasn't even at the restaurant, someone we said was traveling in a SUV convoy but, pay no mind to that.. And if you don't buy that excuse, then the american child was a terrorist, a 21 year old militant, plotting attacks against the US, an imminent threat to Americans, etc.. Oh, and by the way, you cant see no proof, I don't have to show you anything.
    Americans have been using that excuse each time they have killed children in this war on terror. Why are you only offended about this one?

    How many lies do you all have to hear, see and read before you get it?
    Oh you see, I have heard them all.

    I just want to know why you are only concerned about the death of this "American child", while disregarding the deaths of thousands of other civilians, including children, at the hands of American and allied forces in this war on terror? Did you bray as loudly when the drones hit Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, killing civilians, including children? How about when Bush ordered "shock and awe", hitting numerous civilian targets in Iraq in his bid to 'get Saddam'?

    You see, it isn't that I disagree with you about the use of drones. It is that I disagree with your blatant political hypocrisy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Tranquille, A lot of Yemen is controlled by Al quada. Who controls yemen is constantly shifting too. It is not a matter of this building or that building. Al quada itself controls a lot of cities/towns. Very few people in those cities/towns are al quada, and no one, not even the US is claiming the restaurant was a known al quada hang out or ran by al quada (as if it was the mob and a mob spot or as if the US is going to spend millions of dollars to take out an outside restaurant so al quada can't buy garbage food from the place.. take that al quada, you cant eat any more garbage food from that place again! We win!). The entire city, at the time, was controlled by al quada. That is what they meant by striking al quada's position. The city was under al quada's control. The city itself was an al quada position, a strong hold. The US did not strike al quada at the restaurant, they attacked and struck an american boy.

    If they were targeting al quada at the restaurant they would have said who it was, or they can say a high level al quada meeting was going on there or a high level al quada member was eating there, and prove it... However, there was no one there but the american boy, and it is pretty clear they wanted him dead, that is unless you believe in impossible coincidences.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 7th, 2013 at 02:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Tranquille, A lot of Yemen is controlled by Al quada. Who controls yemen is constantly shifting too. It is not a matter of this building or that building. Al quada itself controls a lot of cities/towns. Very few people in those cities/towns are al quada, and no one, not even the US is claiming the restaurant was a known al quada hang out or ran by al quada (as if it was the mob and a mob spot or as if the US is going to spend millions of dollars to take out an outside restaurant so al quada can't buy garbage food from the place.. take that al quada, you cant eat any more garbage food from that place again! We win!). The entire city, at the time, was controlled by al quada. That is what they meant by striking al quada's position. The city was under al quada's control. The city itself was an al quada position, a strong hold. The US did not strike al quada at the restaurant, they attacked and struck an american boy.

    If they were targeting al quada at the restaurant they would have said who it was, or they can say a high level al quada meeting was going on there or a high level al quada member was eating there, and prove it... However, there was no one there but the american boy, and it is pretty clear they wanted him dead, that is unless you believe in impossible coincidences.
    Now perhaps you can explain to me why an "American boy", left his safe home and his mother and family behind in one safe part of Yemen and traveled and went to stay in an area that was controlled by Al Qaeda with various other family members and friends? You attempted to claim that he was on his way back home to America.. Which is patently false.

    Your constant use of emotive language aside, look at the bare facts. He was the son of a man who encouraged, incited and demanded Muslims in America kill non-Muslim Americans. He was directly connected to a few men who actually committed terrorist acts on American soil. He was also directly connected to other terrorists that attacked American and other targets in Yemen and elsewhere. His son, the "American boy" you keep telling us about, spent the greater part of his life in Yemen. His sole ties to "America" was his birth certificate. He deliberately and consciously placed himself amongst known terrorist when he left his home and went to live with said terrorists.

    But tell me, why aren't you complaining about the bombings, shootings, and drone attacks on non-American civilians in this "war on terror"?

    What about the Pakistani, Afghan and Iraqi boys and girls killed by the American Government since Bush was in power? Or do they just not matter?

    Or are you just complaining now because it's Obama who did it and the victims were American citizens? Explain your double standard and your politically driven outrage and you might be taken seriously.
    MrMojo1 and AlexG like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then put aside the fact that it is Obama and imagine that a Republican is killing Americans without due process. That is the real issue. Do we have constitutional rights, or don't we?
    LOL. Isn't it funny how all the problems of the "imperial presidency" disappeared once Obama was elected. Guantanamo. No problem. Attacking a nation without a declaration of war or any congressional action at all, yawn. A presidential kill list that includes Americans? Pfft. Who cares.

    We'd better elect a Republican soon or we'll have no rights left at all.......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    Now perhaps you can explain to me why an "American boy", left his safe home and his mother and family behind in one safe part of Yemen and traveled and went to stay in an area that was controlled by Al Qaeda with various other family members and friends?

    the "American boy" you keep telling us about, spent the greater part of his life in Yemen. His sole ties to "America" was his birth certificate. He deliberately and consciously placed himself amongst known terrorist when he left his home and went to live with said terrorists.
    This response, with all do respect, is very sad IMO. All you guys keep doing is attempting to attack the dead American Child to protect and justify the child killer. It is sick IMO.

    Since when can't an american boy leave his families home to find his father and visit other family and friends in his families ancestral lands, since when does a president get to murder american children for doing this?

    Again, you also accused the american boy of being with and living with terrorist, as if this is another reason Obama murdered the American Child but, the american child was not living with terrorists. Obama sure did not kill any terrorist eating dinner, he murdered the american child. You see, if the boy was with terrorist, those terrorist would be dead with him but, it is a lie, the boy was not with terrorist, Obama clearly wanted to murder the boy and then he murdered him. It is not a coincidence that Obama played executioner with his father then a few weeks later murdered his son.

    Attempting to call him a fake american, or somehow not a real america, is not cool.

    These foul and disgusting attacks on the american child by many of you on this thread, for no other reason than to attempt to protect and justify Obama, is sad IMO.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 7th, 2013 at 01:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Since when can't an american boy leave his families home to find his father and visit other family and friends in his families ancestral lands, since when does a president get to murder american children for doing this?
    When (a) the boy's father is a major player in an international terrorist organization and (b) surveillance equipment reveals the boy to be involved as well.

    Note that we do not know if (b) is true but it seems you have somehow concluded that it is definitely not.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Note that we do not know if (b) is true but it seems you have somehow concluded that it is definitely not.
    He doesn't really care about the boy, he just wants to rant about Obama.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then put aside the fact that it is Obama and imagine that a Republican is killing Americans without due process. That is the real issue. Do we have constitutional rights, or don't we?
    LOL. Isn't it funny how all the problems of the "imperial presidency" disappeared once Obama was elected. Guantanamo. No problem. Attacking a nation without a declaration of war or any congressional action at all, yawn. A presidential kill list that includes Americans? Pfft. Who cares.

    We'd better elect a Republican soon or we'll have no rights left at all.......
    You raise an interesting point. Why do you assume constitutional rights or any privileges granted in one country has any weight in another country? The USA has freedom of speech as an amendment, but if an American citizen went to theocratic state and spoke out against the official religion they could be jailed or even executed.
    Darkhorse likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Gonzales56 what is sick and disgusting is your refusal to talk about anything other than this poor AMERICAN boy. What about all the other children than have been killed by warfare, do they not matter? You refuse to discuss or even acknowlege the comments. That is truely sad.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Folks, this is not a partisan issue, or it shouldn't be. Even the left leaning ACLU has a big problem with this. You can't accuse them of an anti-Obama agenda.
    The Justice Department

    The paper's basic contention is that the government has the authority to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen if "an informed, high-level official" deems him to present a "continuing" threat to the country. This sweeping authority is said to exist even if the threat presented isn't imminent in any ordinary sense of that word, even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield. The white paper purports to recognize some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are so vague and elastic that they will be easily manipulated.
    The paper initially suggests, for example, that the government's authority to use lethal force is limited to people who present "imminent" threats, but it then proceeds to redefine the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning. The paper does something similar with the phrase "capture is infeasible." It initially sounds like a real limitation but by page 8 it seems to mean only that the government won't use lethal force if capture is more convenient. It's the language of limits—but without any real restrictions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Folks, this is not a partisan issue, or it shouldn't be. Even the left leaning ACLU has a big problem with this. You can't accuse them of an anti-Obama agenda.
    The Justice Department

    The paper's basic contention is that the government has the authority to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen if "an informed, high-level official" deems him to present a "continuing" threat to the country. This sweeping authority is said to exist even if the threat presented isn't imminent in any ordinary sense of that word, even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield. The white paper purports to recognize some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are so vague and elastic that they will be easily manipulated.
    The paper initially suggests, for example, that the government's authority to use lethal force is limited to people who present "imminent" threats, but it then proceeds to redefine the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning. The paper does something similar with the phrase "capture is infeasible." It initially sounds like a real limitation but by page 8 it seems to mean only that the government won't use lethal force if capture is more convenient. It's the language of limits—but without any real restrictions.
    Harold, I am not a republican. I don't dislike Obama, though I did not vote for him.
    Just saying.

    The issue is contentious because we're all opinionated on it. It's not a clear issue- there's a lot of factors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    Now perhaps you can explain to me why an "American boy", left his safe home and his mother and family behind in one safe part of Yemen and traveled and went to stay in an area that was controlled by Al Qaeda with various other family members and friends?

    the "American boy" you keep telling us about, spent the greater part of his life in Yemen. His sole ties to "America" was his birth certificate. He deliberately and consciously placed himself amongst known terrorist when he left his home and went to live with said terrorists.
    This response, with all do respect, is very sad IMO. All you guys keep doing is attempting to attack the dead American Child to protect and justify the child killer. It is sick IMO.

    Since when can't an american boy leave his families home to find his father and visit other family and friends in his families ancestral lands, since when does a president get to murder american children for doing this?

    Again, you also accused the american boy of being with and living with terrorist, as if this is another reason Obama murdered the American Child but, the american child was not living with terrorists. Obama sure did not kill any terrorist eating dinner, he murdered the american child. You see, if the boy was with terrorist, those terrorist would be dead with him but, it is a lie, the boy was not with terrorist, Obama clearly wanted to murder the boy and then he murdered him. It is not a coincidence that Obama played executioner with his father then a few weeks later murdered his son.

    Attempting to call him a fake american, or somehow not a real america, is not cool.

    These foul and disgusting attacks on the american child by many of you on this thread, for no other reason than to attempt to protect and justify Obama, is sad IMO.
    Ah yes, more rendering of clothes for the "American child"..

    What about all the other children that Bush and Obama have killed with drone attacks?

    Why are you only concerned about this one "American child"?

    Or are you only concerned about the "American child" and the others do not count?

    You see Gonzales, I am against drone attacks. I was against it when Bush did it and I am against it when Obama does it. Full stop. Because they have the ability to kill so many civilians and do kill so many civilians.

    You, on the other hand do not seem to mind them in general. You are only complaining because Obama gave the okay to use the drones to kill an American citizen who was a terrorist and gave the 'okay' for another strike that killed other American citizens who associated and resided with known terrorists. So tell me Gonzales, why aren't you complaining about the drone attacks that "murder" so many children in Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq? Why are those less offensive to you?

    In other words, this is not a thread where you are complaining about drone attacks. This is a purely a thread where you are misleading and lying (such as the whole "he was on his way back to America" line, which we all know was blatantly false), because you do not like Obama.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Folks, this is not a partisan issue, or it shouldn't be. Even the left leaning ACLU has a big problem with this. You can't accuse them of an anti-Obama agenda.
    The Justice Department

    The paper's basic contention is that the government has the authority to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen if "an informed, high-level official" deems him to present a "continuing" threat to the country. This sweeping authority is said to exist even if the threat presented isn't imminent in any ordinary sense of that word, even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield. The white paper purports to recognize some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are so vague and elastic that they will be easily manipulated.
    The paper initially suggests, for example, that the government's authority to use lethal force is limited to people who present "imminent" threats, but it then proceeds to redefine the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning. The paper does something similar with the phrase "capture is infeasible." It initially sounds like a real limitation but by page 8 it seems to mean only that the government won't use lethal force if capture is more convenient. It's the language of limits—but without any real restrictions.
    Of course everyone has an issue with it. However Gonzales' appeal to emotion amounts to "Obama is killing American children".. It was a drone attack on a terrorist target, one of 5 and the "American child" was killed in it.

    The difference here is that everyone else has an issue with the killing of children full stop with these drone attacks. Gonzales is only concerned because 'Obama murdered an American child'..

    The whole argument is hypocritical. Why is it okay to kill children from other countries and label it "collateral damage", but if an "American child" living amongst terrorists is killed in a drone strike on terrorist targets, it suddenly becomes "murder"? I mean screw all the other civilians killed in those drone attacks. It only matters if an American is killed by it? And it is only not okay if Obama does it? He made it partisan.
    MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Certainly, there is a moral issue with killing civilians, foreign or American. However, killing Americans also creates a much clearer Constitutional issue - the violation of due process as guaranteed to US citizens by the Fifth Amendment. So now we are discussing both a moral and a legal issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Folks, this is not a partisan issue, or it shouldn't be. Even the left leaning ACLU has a big problem with this. You can't accuse them of an anti-Obama agenda.
    Actually it is You and Gonzonles that made it a partisan thread. I'm glad to see at least you are trying to re-state your position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Certainly, there is a moral issue with killing civilians, foreign or American. However, killing Americans also creates a much clearer Constitutional issue - the violation of due process as guaranteed to US citizens by the Fifth Amendment. So now we are discussing both a moral and a legal issue.
    This due process you keep referring to only applies to civilian crimes taken place in the USA. Even the USA military has a sticker protocol of codes and behavior. This isn't an civilian issue nor did it take place in the states and territories of the USA. Why to you keep bringing up the issue of Citizenship and the Constitution? Heck, the constitution itself barely identifies rights due to citizens, except for voting and positions of political office.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Certainly, there is a moral issue with killing civilians, foreign or American. However, killing Americans also creates a much clearer Constitutional issue - the violation of due process as guaranteed to US citizens by the Fifth Amendment. So now we are discussing both a moral and a legal issue.
    This due process you keep referring to only applies to civilian crimes taken place in the USA. Even the USA military has a sticker protocol of codes and behavior. This isn't an civilian issue nor did it take place in the states and territories of the USA. Why to you keep bringing up the issue of Citizenship and the Constitution? Heck, the constitution itself barely identifies rights due to citizens, except for voting and positions of political office.
    I'm not aware of a citizen losing his constitutional rights by traveling abroad. Can you provide a reference for that?

    The 5th amendment is very specific in regard to the rights of the accused. I don't know why you would say it barely identifies rights. The part that applies specifically is:
    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm not aware of a citizen losing his constitutional rights by traveling abroad. Can you provide a reference for that?

    The 5th amendment is very specific in regard to the rights of the accused. I don't know why you would say it barely identifies rights. The part that applies specifically is:
    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
    You keep mentioning this like it has some value. Why is that? These rights you speak of are granted while in the specific host country. You don't have USA constitutional rights in North Korea, Iran, or even Jamaica. These rights apply while in USA. Your rights end at the border, afterwards you are under the rules and regulations of the country you are visiting. American citizen traveling to Pakistan and tears up a Koran while in Pakistan, will not be able to claim "Freedom of expression" her/his constitutional rights. She/He will be mostly likely be punished for blaspheming.

    Another example was during WWII many American born Germans return to Germany and fought on that side. They were killed as enemy combatants. The issue with continued conflict with Al-Qaeda is national security issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    These rights you speak of are granted while in the specific host country. You don't have USA constitutional rights in North Korea, Iran, or even Jamaica. These rights apply while in USA. Your rights end at the border, afterwards you are under the rules and regulations of the country you are visiting.
    While I agree it is true that an American's rights are not valid according to North Korea's government - I'm pretty sure the rights still apply as far as American prosecution is concerned anywhere in the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post

    While I agree it is true that an American's rights are not valid according to North Korea's government - I'm pretty sure the rights still apply as far as American prosecution is concerned anywhere in the world.
    Why would you assume that? Do Americans get special rights when visiting other countries? Do other countries have protocols that clearly states USA Constitutional rights are honored here? Are anti-blasphemy laws honored in the USA when visitors come from states that have those restrictions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Certainly, there is a moral issue with killing civilians, foreign or American. However, killing Americans also creates a much clearer Constitutional issue - the violation of due process as guaranteed to US citizens by the Fifth Amendment. So now we are discussing both a moral and a legal issue.
    The complaint about the deaths of 3 American citizens while ignoring the thousands killed by drones is hypocritical.

    But let us look at the legal issue and the legality of drones targeting American Citizens who fight or incite others to criminal acts and actions against the United States.

    Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech last March outlining the administration's legal rationale for when the US is justified in killing its own citizens without charge or trial. "'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security," Holder said at the time. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."


    Well that legal argument, according to the CRS report first obtained by Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News, "seem[s] to conform more with Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Hamdi, in which Justice Thomas argued that in the context of wartime detention for non-punitive purposes, 'due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive determination.'" Hamdi was the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US government had the authority to detain American citizens captured fighting for the enemy on foreign battlefields, but that those captured citizens still had the right to challenge their detention.

    Last I checked, Thomas was the poster boy for the right.

    In 2010, Rep. Charles Dent (a Republican) introduced a resolution to strip al-Awlaki of his American citizenship:

    Dent says that by revoking Awlaki's citizenship it will be easier to target him for covert operations and will keep him out of US civilian courts.
    The lead up to his death:

    On April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the killing of al-Aulaqi.[33] The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.[33] Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[33] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.[33] The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.[33] In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.[33] People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.[201]
    Lets look further at this "American" citizen:

    By May, U.S. officials believed he had become "operational", plotting, not just inspiring, terrorism against the West.[50] Former colleague Abdul-Malik said he "is a terrorist, in my book", and advised shops not to carry even the earlier, non-jihadist al-Aulaqi sermons.[50] In an editorial, Investor's Business Daily called al-Aulaqi the "world's most dangerous man", and recommended that he be added to the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list, a bounty put on his head, that he be designated a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" like Zindani, charged with treason, and extradition papers filed with the Yemeni government. IBD criticized the Justice Department for stonewalling Senator Joe Lieberman's security panel's investigation of al-Aulaqi's role in the Fort Hood massacre.[209]



    A few days later, the United Nations Security Council placed al-Aulaqi on its UN Security Council Resolution 1267 list of individuals associated with al-Qaeda, saying in its summary of reasons that he is a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was involved in recruiting and training camps.[211] That required U.N. member states to freeze his assets, impose a travel ban on him, and prevent weapons from landing in his hands.[212] The following week, the Canadian government ordered financial institutions to look for and seize any property linked to al-Aulaqi, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's senior counter-terrorism officer Gilles Michaud singled out al-Aulaqi as a "major, major factor in radicalization".[211] In September 2010, Jonathan Evans, the Director General of the United Kingdom's domestic security and counter-intelligence agency (MI5), said that al-Aulaqi was the West's Public Enemy No 1.[213]



    Al-Aulaqi was charged in absentia in Sana'a, Yemen, on November 2 with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda.[216] Ali al-Saneaa, the head of the prosecutor's office, announced the charges as part of a trial against another man, Hisham Assem, who had been accused of killing a Frenchman, also saying that al-Aulaqi corresponded with Assem for months, encouraging him to kill foreigners.[216][217] The prosecutor said:
    Yesterday a regular visitor of bars and discotheques in America ... Awlaki today has become the catalyst for shedding the blood of foreigners and security forces. He was chosen by Al-Qaeda to be the lead in many of their criminal operations in Yemen. Awlaki is a figure prone to evil devoid of any conscience, religion, or law.[218]
    A lawyer for al-Aulaqi denied he was linked to the Frenchman's murder.[217] On November 6, Yemeni Judge Mohsen Alwan ordered that al-Aulaqi be caught "dead or alive".[27][219]
    In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Aulaqi called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation", and overthrow Arab leaders. He said that no fatwa (special clerical ruling) is required to kill Americans: "Don't consult with anyone in fighting the Americans, fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils."[31][220]

    Anwar al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    American citizen indeed...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    The Boundaries of the Bill of Rights, UCLA International Institute
    So when, in 1880, American diplomats in Japan "tried" and convicted one American for killing another in Yokohama Bay, they did not need a jury to convict. When the defendant asserted that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated, the Supreme Court declared "the Constitution has no operation in another country."
    In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners remained stuck with the old rule that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply abroad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The Boundaries of the Bill of Rights, UCLA International Institute.
    Interesting read, but what cases does it apply to. I found Wilson v. Girard and Reid v. Covert which both relate court proceedings. How does this relate to enemy combatants against the USA?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The Boundaries of the Bill of Rights, UCLA International Institute
    So when, in 1880, American diplomats in Japan "tried" and convicted one American for killing another in Yokohama Bay, they did not need a jury to convict. When the defendant asserted that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated, the Supreme Court declared "the Constitution has no operation in another country."
    In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners remained stuck with the old rule that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply abroad.
    Now you need to examine whether someone who commits acts of treason, by way of recruiting terrorists to attack America, its citizens and interests abroad, by encouraging and inciting such acts of terrorism that results in the deaths of many is still deemed an American citizen and worthy of such protection.

    Let me ask you something Harold. Let us assume that the American Government had the chance to kill him but chose not to because he was an American citizen. And then he recruited another American who then went on to commit an act of terrorism in the US, killing American citizens. Would people like Gonzales complain that Obama had then not killed the terrorist?

    How about if another country had killed him? Would there be a complaint that another country was killing American citizens?

    Everyone knew that the moment he was placed on the terrorist list, that it was a dead or alive situation. Republicans were calling for him to be stripped of his citizenship so that he could be killed by such drone attacks because he was a terrorist hell bent on attacking the US.

    So why the hypocrisy?

    Any why the moral outrage at the death of 3 Amerians while ignoring the thousands of civilians killed in similar attacks?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The Boundaries of the Bill of Rights, UCLA International Institute
    So when, in 1880, American diplomats in Japan "tried" and convicted one American for killing another in Yokohama Bay, they did not need a jury to convict. When the defendant asserted that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated, the Supreme Court declared "the Constitution has no operation in another country."In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners remained stuck with the old rule that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply abroad.
    The Supreme Court can say what it likes, it doesn't have jurisdiction in another country. You litter in Singapore you get caned, just ask Micheal Fay. Their country their rules.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    The Supreme Court can say what it likes, it doesn't have jurisdiction in another country. You litter in Singapore you get caned, just ask Micheal Fay. Their country their rules.
    I'm sorry- but I thought that was funny. I probably wouldn't have found it funny if I had been caned... But the guy went and tagged with grafitti, then tried to weasel out of it by saying "Hey! You can't do that! I'm American."
    And they said, "That's nice. Bend over."
    Darkhorse likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The Boundaries of the Bill of Rights, UCLA International Institute
    So when, in 1880, American diplomats in Japan "tried" and convicted one American for killing another in Yokohama Bay, they did not need a jury to convict. When the defendant asserted that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated, the Supreme Court declared "the Constitution has no operation in another country."In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners remained stuck with the old rule that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply abroad.
    The Supreme Court can say what it likes, it doesn't have jurisdiction in another country. You litter in Singapore you get caned, just ask Micheal Fay. Their country their rules.
    It says citizens are protected from US government misbehavior, not another country's misbehavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    You litter in Singapore you get caned, just ask Micheal Fay.
    Just to clarify, Mr. Fay was caned because he was convicted for vandalism of public property.
    Darkhorse likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It says citizens are protected from US government misbehavior, not another country's misbehavior.
    So it would have been acceptable if the UK had killed him instead?

    As I have stated from the start, I am against drone attacks. But this outrage and most importantly, this moral outrage is sudden. And the reason for the outrage is not that the drone attacks themselves are inherently wrong because of the large amount of civilian deaths that result from them, but because the US Government has determined that Americans who are terrorists can be targeted by the drones.

    Yemen had determined that he was to be taken dead or alive. He had a bounty on his head. He had been placed on the terrorist list and deemed a threat to the nation by not just the US, but other countries as well.

    The alternative would have been to send in soldiers and risk their lives to try to take him alive to formally charge him. Something even the Republicans did not want as they wanted him stripped of his citizenship so that he could be killed in a covert operation without risk of death or injury to American troops.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    As I have stated from the start, I am against drone attacks.
    Just curious- but why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It says citizens are protected from US government misbehavior, not another country's misbehavior.
    So it would have been acceptable if the UK had killed him instead?
    It might have created an international incident, but not a Constitutional issue.
    As I have stated from the start, I am against drone attacks. But this outrage and most importantly, this moral outrage is sudden. And the reason for the outrage is not that the drone attacks themselves are inherently wrong because of the large amount of civilian deaths that result from them, but because the US Government has determined that Americans who are terrorists can be targeted by the drones.
    Yes the moral outrage is sudden, but that might have to do with the written policy recently discovered. The lack of moral outrage by persons previously outraged but not now outraged following change of administration, is also sudden.
    Yemen had determined that he was to be taken dead or alive. He had a bounty on his head. He had been placed on the terrorist list and deemed a threat to the nation by not just the US, but other countries as well.

    The alternative would have been to send in soldiers and risk their lives to try to take him alive to formally charge him. Something even the Republicans did not want as they wanted him stripped of his citizenship so that he could be killed in a covert operation without risk of death or injury to American troops.
    This is true, but we take those risks all the time because of Constitutional protections. There are known vicious killers roaming the streets of the United States and in fact murdering people because they have rights protected by the fifth amendment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    This isn't a constitutional issue. The USA constitution cover procedures for civil and criminal protocols (ergo Civil Liberties), not warfare.

    The phrase "procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the Due Process Clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what procedural protections are "due" to that individual.
    What we have here is a US Citizen that took actions against the USA, and was determined by the USA, Yemen, and the UN Security Council to be a ranking member of leadership for Al-Qaeda and conspiring to harm civilians. This goes beyond a simple criminal prosecution. If he was just a criminal fleeing the jurisdiction of the USA or a criminal preforming a crime on remote USA territory (e.g. Military base, Naval vessel, or Embassy), then constitutional protocols would be relevant.

    During warfare there is no expectation of Mirandizing or obtaining a search warrant as part of "Due Process of Law" when engaged with an enemy combatant.


    Due Process of Law
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    This isn't a constitutional issue. The USA constitution cover procedures for civil and criminal protocols (ergo Civil Liberties), not warfare.
    Of course, this is the Obama administation's argument, which ACLU and others disagree with. So the debate has come full circle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Diane Feinstein of the senate committee revealed yesterday that Awlaki was involved in some way in three terrorist attacks (Ft. Hood shooting, underwear bombing attempt, and Times Square bombing attempt).

    As far as I can tell, the only options other than a drone attack were:
    - Send U.S. troops into a sovereign nation to capture or kill
    - Do not capture or kill

    I would argue that last option is no option at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Of course, this is the Obama administation's argument, which ACLU and others disagree with. So the debate has come full circle.
    It is not, and I have sufficiently explained why it is not a citizenship/civil rights issue. Your argument was that it was. Are you trying to restate the position you took in your previous posts (#16,19,70,78)? This matter is a framework to prosecute a war for which enemies are entities of non-state status; it is a matter of national security. Some of the members of these entities also happen to be American citizens, which would still make them enemies. This is better known as treason.

    Now treason is covered in the US Constitution under Article Three Section Three, yet you did not present this argument.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    Of the many USA citizens convicted of treason, some got life sentences and some were executed. We may never know how many US spies were killed in-the-field while in process of aiding enemies of the USA. Now do we know of US citizens that have fought on the side of the enemy in past conflicts? Yes. It was commonly known/feared as national security concern during WWII. It was such a huge concern that both Canada and the USA erected interment camps for Japanese Americans, Japanese Canadians, German Americans, and Italians in America (non-citizens only). Now is there a gradient between identifying enemy of the state who happens to be a citizen, deciding to killing/not-killing that enemy while in combat, and prosecuting that citizen for treason? Perhaps. When dealing with matter of any enemy there is usually a kill or capture option. In my opinion capture is only considered if it is has a reduce risk to friendlies/enforcement/military than killing.

    The over-riding concern while in combat operations is that of national defense, and not whether killing a US citizen that giving aid to enemy is a violation of Due Process. While there is an ongoing credible threat to any sovereign state, national defense/security always takes priority.

    Do you think using deadly force to stop an Al-Qaeda threat that would bring harm to the country has priority over "due process" even if members are American?



    List of People Convicted of Treason
    German American Internment
    Italian American Internment
    Japanese American Internment
    Japanese Canadian Internment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Just curious- but why?
    The civilian death toll is way too high.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It might have created an international incident, but not a Constitutional issue.
    And one is better than the other?

    Yes the moral outrage is sudden, but that might have to do with the written policy recently discovered. The lack of moral outrage by persons previously outraged but not now outraged following change of administration, is also sudden.
    I think you would find that the greater majority of people against the use of drones are against it not because it Americans could die, but simply because when using drones to go after particular targets, the risk and dangers to the civilian population is too great. For example, if the aim is to kill one target, a drone attack could end up killing dozens just to try and kill one target.

    This is true, but we take those risks all the time because of Constitutional protections. There are known vicious killers roaming the streets of the United States and in fact murdering people because they have rights protected by the fifth amendment.
    And yet that does not apply to anyone else, does it?

    He was deemed to be an imminent threat to the US, its interests and members of its population. And he was treated as such. Had he been left alive and the 'shot' not taken and he had recruited others and they had gone on to kill Americans , then the complaint would be the same as Clinton saw about Osama.

    All men are created equal. He was only treated as the US treats anyone else suspected of terrorism. If you are against his killing, then you should be ranting about the many others killed in the same fashion.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    They will say and do anything to excuse and justify Obama's actions Harold. There is no getting through to people like that/this.

    They believe Obama has the right and authority to torture and kill/murder Americans without providing any proof, without any evidence and without due process. They now believe the White House can call people terrorist, combatants or militants, and then torture and/or murder them.

    Mind you, Obama's admin calls any and all male persons of age a combatant and militant. They only way a male of age can not be considered a combatants or militants by Obama, according to the Obama admin, is if the male himself can prove to Obama (not the courts), beyond a shadow of doubt or question, that they are not a combatant or militant. Of course this is impossible for anyone to prove beyond all doubt, without question, and now that Obama has made it OK for US women to fight on the front lines in the US, I am sure all women, and not just men, are going to be or have already been classified as combatants or militants by the Obama admin.

    Everyone on this thread is a combatant and/or militant according to Obama's new law.

    Of course, the US is also one of the "Battlefields", as is every other country on the planet.

    Obama has also made it clear. No one can investigate him or what he is doing. No one, not even the courts, can question him or demand that anyone he calls a terrorist, combatant or militant have a hearing or their day in court. Under Obama's new precedent, under his newly declare powers of complete autonomy to be judge, jury and executioner of the american people without right to trial for Americans or oversight on himself, Obama has given his office the power to kill anyone and everyone he wants too.

    Obama has declared that the white house can also kill anyone aiding or abetting combatants or militants. Remind you, combatants and militants according to Obama and his admin are all males of fighting age in every country (battlefields), and the only people who are not counted as combatants and militants are people who can prove that they (you don't have the right to trial so you will never be able to prove you are not) , beyond a shadow of doubt, unequivocally, are not a combatant or militant.

    The powers Obama seized means the white house can assassinate/murder judges, politicians or anyone else that stands up for any males that are of age and/or if they try to stop him or the white house from murdering "combatants" or "militants".

    Make no mistake about it, if a court in Yemen or a court in the States rules that Obama was and is wrong for killing what Obama and his admin calls "combatants" and "militants", Obama has given himself and the white house the authority to strike those judges and those courts. Obama claims no one and nothing can dare stop Him or the white house, that they cannot get in Obama's way or aid or abet "combatants" or "militants" (as he defines them, not how anyone else defines them).

    Aiding or abetting human males that are of age, or As Obama and his admin puts it, "Combatants and Militants", is more than enough for Obama, according to his law, to assassinate and murder the people who would dare do so.

    Obama's law states exactly what people here are saying to defend and justify Obama. "Obama can kill who he wants. That boy was a militant and if he was not, he was with a militant. Prove that he was not a militant or was not with a militant.. If you cant, shut up, Obama can murder him. Obama can murder american militants all he wants to. It's a battlefield. We are at war. Obama is just, right and the president. The constitution does not apply to battlefields and militants. Again, shut up."
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 8th, 2013 at 10:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    They will say and do anything to excuse and justify Obama's actions Harold. There is no getting through to people like that/this.

    They believe Obama has the right and authority to torture and kill/murder Americans without providing any proof, without any evidence and without due process. They now believe the White House can call people terrorist, combatants or militants, and then torture and/or murder them.

    Mind you, Obama's admin calls any and all male person of age a combatant and militant. They only way all males of age are not considered combatants or militants by Obama, according to the Obama admin, is if the males themselves can prove, beyond a shadow of doubt or question, that they are not combatants or militants. Of course this is impossible for anyone to do, and now that Obama has made it ok for US women to fight on the front lines in the US, I am sure all women, and not just men, are going to be or have already been classified as combatants or militants by the Obama admin.

    Of course, the US is also one of the "Battlefields", as is every other country on the planet, in the "war on terror".

    There is no limit to who or where Obama can murder someone, and thanks to Obama, there is now no limit to who or where any and all future presidents can torture or murder someone.

    Obama has also made it clear. No one can investigate him or what he is doing. No one, not even the courts, can question him or demand that anyone he calls a terrorist, combatant or militant have a hearing or their day in court. Under Obama's new precedent, under his newly declare powers of complete autonomy to be judge, jury and executioner of the american people without right to trial for Americans or oversight on himself, Obama has given his office the power to kill anyone and everyone he wants too.

    Obama has declared that the white house can also kill anyone aiding or abetting combatants or militants. Remind you, combatants and militants according to Obama and his admin are all males of fighting ages in every country, even the US (battlefields), and the only people who are not counted as combatants and militants are people who can prove that they (you don't have the right to trial so you will never be able to prove you are not) , beyond a shadow of doubt, unequivocally, are not a combatant or militant.

    The powers Obama seized means the white house can assassinate/murder judges, politicians or anyone else that stands up for any males that are of age and/or if they try to stop him or the white house from murdering "combatants" or "militants".

    Make no mistake about it, if a court in Yemen or a court in the States rules that Obama was and is wrong for killing what Obama and his admin calls "combatants" and "militants", Obama has given himself and the white house the authority to strike those judges and those courts. Obama claims no one and nothing can dare stop Him or the white house, get in their way or aid or abet "combatants" or "militants" (as he defines them, not how anyone else defines them). Ruling or standing up for males that are of age, or As Obama and his admin puts it, "Combatants and Militants", is more than enough for Obama, according to his law, to assassinate and murder the people who would dare do so.

    So Harold... Do you still wish to declare that this discussion is not partisan?

    The only thing Gonzales left out of that rant is 'he's commin' fer yer wimmin folk'.

    I could sit and pick apart the lies and frankly, made up stories, in this post, but I am choosing sleep. I mean, that last paragraph alone is enough to make me recommend a foil hat and padded room for you, Gonzales.
    Darkhorse likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    He was deemed to be an imminent threat to the US, its interests and members of its population.
    Obama and his admin classifies/redefines an imminent threat as someone, anyone, who might or might not commit a terrorist attack, and in fact, Obama and his admin declare that they do not even need proof in front of them that a person is going to attack, is planning to attack or is in progress of an attack. When Obama and his admin say there "was an imminent threat so they murdered someone", they are not talking about what everyone else on the planet calls an imminent threat.

    An Imminent threat to Obama and his admin is also just some guy, woman or child sitting at a park having a picnic, whom have never, in all their life, plotted, planned or carried out any kind of terrorist act in any sense that people define and know them to be. Under Obama's definitions and sense of what these words mean to him though, innocent people are terrorist, are imminent threats, and they can be murdered by him.

    Obama defines and classifies everything in a sick, sneaky and twisted way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    An Imminent threat to Obama and his admin is also just some guy, woman or child sitting at a park having a picnic, whom have never, in all their life, plotted, planned or carried out any kind of terrorist act in any sense that people define and know them to be.
    Is this pure speculation on your part or do you have actual evidence that this is the case?

    Obama defines and classifies everything in a sick, sneaky and twisted way.
    Hmm.
    Like using the word "murder" when it's actually not?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    (sigh).

    Gonz stop ranting. Clearly, based on the OP's emotive sources, and subsequent post of yours, you set this entire thread as a form of trolling rather than an objective discussion about use of drones to combat terrorism or what to do about traitorous citizens. See you in three days.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Of course, this is the Obama administation's argument, which ACLU and others disagree with. So the debate has come full circle.
    It is not, and I have sufficiently explained why it is not a citizenship/civil rights issue. Your argument was that it was. Are you trying to restate the position you took in your previous posts (#16,19,70,78)? This matter is a framework to prosecute a war for which enemies are entities of non-state status; it is a matter of national security. Some of the members of these entities also happen to be American citizens, which would still make them enemies. This is better known as treason.
    I believe the administration's policy paper did try to make this case, and that ACLU did not agree with their criteria. Do you feel your argument is different than the Obama admin's?
    Of the many USA citizens convicted of treason, some got life sentences and some were executed.
    Point is, they were convicted, not summarily executed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille"
    So Harold... Do you still wish to declare that this discussion is not partisan?

    The only thing Gonzales left out of that rant is 'he's commin' fer yer wimmin folk'.

    I could sit and pick apart the lies and frankly, made up stories, in this post, but I am choosing sleep. I mean, that last paragraph alone is enough to make me recommend a foil hat and padded room for you, Gonzales.
    Well it is Obama's policy so who else should we blame for it? Non-partisan means you should be concerned as well, just like the non-partisan ACLU.
    You can make the same "tin foil hat" argument about any common criminal walking the streets and their constitutional rights. Why not just bust into their house without a warrant and gun them down, or throw them in the slammer without a trial. Are we really worried about an out of control police state coming after ordinary citizens? Yep, that's the way we are. Conspiracy theorists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Well it is Obama's policy so who else should we blame for it? Non-partisan means you should be concerned as well, just like the non-partisan ACLU.
    You can make the same "tin foil hat" argument about any common criminal walking the streets and their constitutional rights. Why not just bust into their house without a warrant and gun them down, or throw them in the slammer without a trial. Are we really worried about an out of control police state coming after ordinary citizens? Yep, that's the way we are. Conspiracy theorists.
    The use of drones and the policy was in place before Obama.

    But we can move past that for now, since this is about big bad 'bama..

    You see, when you use that kind of language and push the whole "bust into their house without a warrant and gun them down, or throw them in the slammer without a trial", the term irrational comes to mind. The fact is he is not doing that. We both know he is not doing that. So less running with the scissors while screaming like a girl and more calming down.:P

    As I said earlier, this sudden outrage from the media is hypocritical. And inherently selfish. No one cares that drones killed thousands of civilians. You are all only concerned that Constitutional rights of 3 Americans may have been abused. And I think that is a sad state of affairs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Just curious- but why?
    The civilian death toll is way too high.
    Ah, got it.

    Gonzo, sorry to see you got yourself some time off; hope you come back refreshed and ready to discuss the topic in a non-partisan way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Kill List" found outside Texas Junior high school
    By seagypsy in forum In the News
    Replies: 199
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2013, 01:12 PM
  2. "American Copernicus" Claims Self As Center Of Uni
    By alanpartridge in forum Links
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 11th, 2011, 08:14 AM
  3. "smarter people has less children" Misguided?
    By Raziell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 12:57 AM
  4. "The American Era?"
    By Pendragon in forum History
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: March 16th, 2009, 10:20 PM
  5. Censorship and Ad Hominem Attacks From "Moderators"
    By Total Science in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 08:55 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •