War criminal Obama murders American citizen

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

- Why do you see these as mutually exclusive things? Can't we do both?
- Individual murders are not "terrorism".
- We don't "tolerate" murder.
- Murder and violent crime are at a 30-year low.
- Are you suggesting posting soldiers in our streets for crime fighting?

I'm mainly trying to define at what point something becomes "terrorism" and extraordinary action becomes justified. For example, why does the attempted Dec 25 bombing qualify as "terrorism" whereas a guy who shoots up a convenience store in Arkansas is "not terrorism". We seem to devote extraordinary resources--on a lot of levels--based on the label "terrorism" so I'm asking what, specifically, justifies such a label being used.

The guy shooting up the 7-11 just wants some money and may kill one person.
The terrorist wants to kill thousands and make us all behave like sheep in airports.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Liberals consider former President George Bush to be a war criminal for this type of thing.

Yeah. Because of the drone strikes. Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason.

Quote

But when Obamer does the same thing, they either hail him as a hero, or remain silent.

You think those are the only two options? You have a strange, strange view of the world.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

The guy shooting up the 7-11 just wants some money and may kill one person.
The terrorist wants to kill thousands and make us all behave like sheep in airports.

In the old days a terrorist was someone who was trying to achieve a particular political agenda through acts of terror. It wasn't defined by the number of people killed. For example, the SLA (the group that kidnapped Patty Hearst) was considered a terrorist group despite "only" killing two people.

In those days often multiple militant groups would claim responsibility for a given action because it they saw it as a way to coerce people into listening to them--even if they actually weren't responsible.

"Terrorists" today seem to have very vague agendas--to the point where I would call most of them mass murderers but not terrorists. "Making us behave like sheep at airports" seems like an odd objective for a terrorist to have since (a) it has already largely been accomplished and (b) successfully achieving it limits terrorists ability to carry out further attacks.

Originally the distinction between terrorism and ordinary crime was that in using crime to achieve political ends, a terrorist puts the integrity of our political system into jeopardy in a way that ordinary crime--no matter how serious--does not. That distinction seems to have been gradually lost over the years.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[billvon 2,436]

Still pissed off that Obama killed Bin Laden, eh?

Imagine how happy conservatives would be if he had survived and pulled off another 9/11. They'd have more stuff to blame Obama for.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Liberals consider former President George Bush to be a war criminal for this type of thing.
But when Obamer does the same thing, they either hail him as a hero, or remain silent.
Go figure.

That is simply false. The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration before this happenned, trying to stop this assassination.


http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/audio-clips/ccr-attorney-pardiss-kabriaei-targeted-assassinations-glenn-greenwald-radio

If you poke around their website, you will find that they are pretty clearly a "liberal" organization.


http://ccrjustice.org/

In addition, Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer/commentator/blogger, has criticized this action.

http://news.yahoo.com/awlaqi-killing-reignites-us-debate-rights-152720230.html

Greenwald describes himself as neither liberal nor conservative, but you would probably call him a liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

In addition, I call myself a liberal on most issues, and I think Obama screwed up here and deserves criticism. You like to paint with a very broad brush. It's a sign of someone who doesn't think very carefully about the issues. You seem bright enough to make your point without resorting to such broad overgeneralizations based on what you think someone's political views might be.

[grimmie 177]

Clear thinking American.

[brenthutch 388]

No Bill, I was just listing to Democracy Now on NPR, and I was just relaying what they were saying.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Liberals consider former President George Bush to be a war criminal for this type of thing.
But when Obamer does the same thing, they either hail him as a hero, or remain silent.
Go figure.

That is simply false. The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Obama...
In addition, Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer/commentator/blogger, has criticized this action.
In addition, I call myself a liberal on most issues, and I think Obama screwed up here...

Okay, that's three liberals who have criticized him. Have they labeled him a "war criminal" yet? You've got a 100 million more liberals to go...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder what happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about how we need to arrest terrorists on the battlefield, read them their rights and then bring them back to the U.S for trial?

I'm going to go with "It never existed."

At least, not in any way that could be used in opposition to an action of this kind.

It most certainly did. I recall a lot of debate about how terrorists were going to be tried in criminal courts when they had not ever been read their Miranda Rights. The question was how they were going to be charged and prosecuted under U.S. laws unless they had been Mirandized.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder what happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about how we need to arrest terrorists on the battlefield, read them their rights and then bring them back to the U.S for trial?

I'm going to go with "It never existed."

At least, not in any way that could be used in opposition to an action of this kind.

It most certainly did. I recall a lot of debate about how terrorists were going to be tried in criminal courts when they had not ever been read their Miranda Rights. The question was how they were going to be charged and prosecuted under U.S. laws unless they had been Mirandized.

So, again, the dichotomy you're trying to create simply does not exist.

You do see that you're talking about two completely different issues, don't you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder what happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about how we need to arrest terrorists on the battlefield, read them their rights and then bring them back to the U.S for trial?

I'm going to go with "It never existed."

At least, not in any way that could be used in opposition to an action of this kind.

It most certainly did. I recall a lot of debate about how terrorists were going to be tried in criminal courts when they had not ever been read their Miranda Rights. The question was how they were going to be charged and prosecuted under U.S. laws unless they had been Mirandized.

Just a technical FYI. We're going off on a tangent; but that's a common non-lawyer's misconception that I hear all the time: the belief (which is wrong) that an arrest (under US law) isn't "legal" unless the defendant is Mirandized. My criminal-defense clients raise that all the time w/me. I'll tell you what I tell them: All a failure to Mirandize does is make a defendant's statement inadmissible in court. But if there's no incriminating statement, it's a non-issue; and it most certainly does not otherwise make either the arrest or a subsequent prosecution illegal.

Usually goes like this:

Client: They didn't read me my rights!!
Me: Did you make a confession?
Client: Uh....... No.
Me: Then it doesn't make any difference.
Client: But I always thought....
Me: Yeah, I know, but this isn't TV. Unless you said something self-incriminating to them, it makes no difference.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder what happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about how we need to arrest terrorists on the battlefield, read them their rights and then bring them back to the U.S for trial?

I'm going to go with "It never existed."

At least, not in any way that could be used in opposition to an action of this kind.

It most certainly did. I recall a lot of debate about how terrorists were going to be tried in criminal courts when they had not ever been read their Miranda Rights. The question was how they were going to be charged and prosecuted under U.S. laws unless they had been Mirandized.

So, again, the dichotomy you're trying to create simply does not exist.

You do see that you're talking about two completely different issues, don't you?

No I don't. Perhaps you are over=thinking my point.

[brenthutch 388]

Wars of choice in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Pakistan. No trials no arrests, just a hellfire missile in the house with the neighbors kids playing in the living room. Yet not a peep out of code pink and the like. It might just be me but I would rather be water boarded than shot in the face, or blown up. The hypocrisy on the left stunning, yet not surprising.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

So, again, the dichotomy you're trying to create simply does not exist.

You do see that you're talking about two completely different issues, don't you?

No I don't. Perhaps you are over=thinking my point.

Jakee, FYI the point is "Obama is evil". No thought is required, just a healthy knee jerk reflex.

Gravity, I have a hard time believing you can't see the difference between how prisoners are treated after they have been captured, vs how wanted alleged terrorists are treated while US forces seek to apprehend or incapacitate them. al-Awlaki has known for years he is wanted in the US; he has had every opportunity to peacefully surrender and seek to clear his name if he is innocent of the alleged offenses. Since he chose instead to continue to recruit would-be terrorists, he presented an "imminent threat" and "neutralizing" him can be seen as just as justified as a police sniper "neutralizing" a hostage taker to protect the hostages.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, again, the dichotomy you're trying to create simply does not exist.

You do see that you're talking about two completely different issues, don't you?

No I don't. Perhaps you are over=thinking my point.

Jakee, FYI the point is "Obama is evil". No thought is required, just a healthy knee jerk reflex.

Gravity, I have a hard time believing you can't see the difference between how prisoners are treated after they have been captured, vs how wanted alleged terrorists are treated while US forces seek to apprehend or incapacitate them. al-Awlaki has known for years he is wanted in the US; he has had every opportunity to peacefully surrender and seek to clear his name if he is innocent of the alleged offenses. Since he chose instead to continue to recruit would-be terrorists, he presented an "imminent threat" and "neutralizing" him can be seen as just as justified as a police sniper "neutralizing" a hostage taker to protect the hostages.

Don

I can't believe you fail to see that I'm supporting Obama in this action. So your comments about Obama being Evil are pretty stupid and condescending. I guess it's easier for some people to label others as it requires no thinking skills.

Secondly, If you believe terrorists should be given Constitutional Right, I fail to see how you think this is proper treatment of an American Citizen. When was Al-Awalaki given the opportunity to surrender and how was this supposed notice delivered to him? Was he shooting at anyone or an imminent threat when he was killed? Would a criminal be treated this way in the U.S.? Was a "Dead or Alive" Warrant ever issued?

Is a secret memo from the DOJ sufficient authorization to kill him?

Quote

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html

To be clear, I'm not advocating rights being given to terrorists and I support Obama in his pursuit of bin Laden and Al-Awaliki, I'm asking where those who previously supported right for terrorists are? At what point do their U.S. Constitutional Rights begin? And if you belive they start when they are captured and not before, then do you think they should be Mirandized on the battlefield or only once they are on U.S. soil?
How can those who advocated rights for terrorists be silent when there is clearly a violation occuring in this case?

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder what happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about how we need to arrest terrorists on the battlefield, read them their rights and then bring them back to the U.S for trial?

I'm going to go with "It never existed."

At least, not in any way that could be used in opposition to an action of this kind.

It most certainly did. I recall a lot of debate about how terrorists were going to be tried in criminal courts when they had not ever been read their Miranda Rights. The question was how they were going to be charged and prosecuted under U.S. laws unless they had been Mirandized.

So, again, the dichotomy you're trying to create simply does not exist.

You do see that you're talking about two completely different issues, don't you?

No I don't.

Wow.

Quote

Perhaps you are over=thinking my point.

If by 'overthjinking' you mean 'making it reflect reality' then no, no I'm not. However, if by 'overthinking' you mean 'not accepting my biased strawman at face value' then I guess I am.

Now, once again with the explanation - there's a difference between discussing what you should do with an enemy/suspected enemy once you have captured him, and discussing how much effort you should go to to capture vs kill that enemy while he is still at large. If you still think those concepts are too complicated, then we are on two very different levels.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder what happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about how we need to arrest terrorists on the battlefield, read them their rights and then bring them back to the U.S for trial?

I'm going to go with "It never existed."

At least, not in any way that could be used in opposition to an action of this kind.

It most certainly did. I recall a lot of debate about how terrorists were going to be tried in criminal courts when they had not ever been read their Miranda Rights. The question was how they were going to be charged and prosecuted under U.S. laws unless they had been Mirandized.

So, again, the dichotomy you're trying to create simply does not exist.

You do see that you're talking about two completely different issues, don't you?

No I don't.

Wow.

Quote

Perhaps you are over=thinking my point.

If by 'overthjinking' you mean 'making it reflect reality' then no, no I'm not. However, if by 'overthinking' you mean 'not accepting my biased strawman at face value' then I guess I am.

Now, once again with the explanation - there's a difference between discussing what you should do with an enemy/suspected enemy once you have captured him, and discussing how much effort you should go to to capture vs kill that enemy while he is still at large. If you still think those concepts are too complicated, then we are on two very different levels.

It's you that seems to be having problems grasping my point.
Why didn't Timothy McVie get the same treatment?

[SpeedRacer 1]

The Fox News headline should be: Obama Kills Fellow Muslim African.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Why didn't Timothy McVie get the same treatment?

Because when McVeigh was identified as the bomber he was already in custody. Do you thnk they should have sent an airstrike against the jail?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

....neutralizing" him can be seen as just as justified as a police sniper "neutralizing" a hostage taker to protect the hostages.

Good point, Don.
Then, too, war is war (declared or not) and people get taken out without due process. Nothing new there. If you battle, you can expect to be battled...regardless of your citizenship.

I can imagine that there are other U.S.-born citizens on multiple enemy rosters throughout the world.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[nigel99 151]

Quote

Just a technical FYI. We're going off on a tangent; but that's a common non-lawyer's misconception that I hear all the time: the belief (which is wrong) that an arrest (under US law) isn't "legal" unless the defendant is Mirandized. My criminal-defense clients raise that all the time w/me. I'll tell you what I tell them: All a failure to Mirandize does is make a defendant's statement inadmissible in court. But if there's no incriminating statement, it's a non-issue; and it most certainly does not otherwise make either the arrest or a subsequent prosecution illegal.

Usually goes like this:

Client: They didn't read me my rights!!
Me: Did you make a confession?
Client: Uh....... No.
Me: Then it doesn't make any difference.
Client: But I always thought....
Me: Yeah, I know, but this isn't TV. Unless you said something self-incriminating to them, it makes no difference.

Whoosh the thread skips over a sensible factual post in order to keep the "debate" alive and well

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Rdutch 0]

Quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/anwar-alawlaki-usborn-mus_n_988397.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|100354

Fuck that! Kill him, and kill him quickly. He has planned and implemented, attempts to kill my fellow countrymen. Civilian and military. I say do it the fastest and cheapest way. If you wish to do harm to me, especially from thousands of miles away, using weak minded people as the method, then I hope my tax money pays for you to loose your life. I dont make this as a political statement, because I think GWB would have made the same decision as Obama, to end this fuckers life.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

I wonder what happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about how we need to arrest terrorists on the battlefield, read them their rights and then bring them back to the U.S for trial?

They served an arrest warrant - taped to a Hellfire missile.

And good riddance al-awlaki! You turned your back on the country you were born in and started plotting terrorist attacks against us.

Have fun in Hell.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Why didn't Timothy McVie get the same treatment?

Because when McVeigh was identified as the bomber he was already in custody. Do you thnk they should have sent an airstrike against the jail?

So if he hadn't been in jail, you would have supported blowing him up with a missle or an assasination squad slipping in his house in the middle of the night an killing him? This is how you want our government to operate?

WOW!!!

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why didn't Timothy McVie get the same treatment?

Because when McVeigh was identified as the bomber he was already in custody. Do you thnk they should have sent an airstrike against the jail?

So if he hadn't been in jail, you would have supported blowing him up with a missle or an assasination squad slipping in his house in the middle of the night an killing him? This is how you want our government to operate?

WOW!!!

If his house was in a country or region of a country where there was no rule of law or a rule of law existed that was opposed to any cooperation in executing the due process that we've all come to know and love? Yeah, sure.

If you intentionally go places where laws can't get to you so you can do bad things, you shouldn't be surprised when you wind up dead for pissing off the wrong people.