Andy9o8 0 #51 February 5, 2013 QuoteSo, faced with overwhelming evidence the person is a terrorist operating in a non-friendly country you think it's better to risk the lives of a team of special forces to attempt to capture the guy and put him on trial (one in which he will almost assuredly be found guilty) rather than simply take him out and be done with it? I dunno about that. That's not what I said; and I did begin my first post noting that it's a grea area. I didn't say such action was necessarily wrong in all instances. I said that the overall legal justification was deficient because the factual triggers were too vague: Quotethe U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. That's not good enough for me. What would be good enough for me? Probably a scenario that would clearly cross out of the grey area and solidly into the area of "rules of engagement in war". In my mind, that would mean, at the very least, engaged in an active plot to attack the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #52 February 5, 2013 QuoteSo, faced with overwhelming evidence (and his own video admission) the person is a terrorist operating in a non-friendly country you think it's better to risk the lives of a team of special forces to attempt to capture the guy and put him on trial (one in which he will almost assuredly be found guilty) rather than simply take him out and be done with it? I dunno about that. Again, technically an American citizen or not, once a guy throws in with terrorists and actively is working for them, I think the guy is fair game. The guy was an admitted traitor by definition; not simply by hyperbole. US citizens are fair game you say. OK, I hear you are visiting AQ websites and that means you are siding with the enemy right here in the US. Watch your back. You guys having never lived in a communist controlled area or country don't have a clue what an authoritative power can do, make up or invent. Thats what is scary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #53 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteSo, faced with overwhelming evidence (and his own video admission) the person is a terrorist operating in a non-friendly country you think it's better to risk the lives of a team of special forces to attempt to capture the guy and put him on trial (one in which he will almost assuredly be found guilty) rather than simply take him out and be done with it? I dunno about that. Again, technically an American citizen or not, once a guy throws in with terrorists and actively is working for them, I think the guy is fair game. The guy was an admitted traitor by definition; not simply by hyperbole. US citizens are fair game you say. OK, I hear you are visiting AQ websites and that means you are siding with the enemy right here in the US. Watch your back. You guys having never lived in a communist controlled area or country don't have a clue what an authoritative power can do, make up or invent. Thats what is scary. Not all repressive, authoritarian police states are Commie. That said, the Commies did hone it to a fine art. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #54 February 6, 2013 not replying to anybody in particular, but the hostage case in Alabama doesn't really apply here. The cops and FBI talked to the hostage-taker for several days and gave him a chance to surrender. That is enough of a safeguard of his rights to constitute "due process". Let me pose two hypotheticals for you guys to gnaw on: 1) The U.S. is invaded by uniformed, armed foreign troops who begin to destroy property and kill anybody who gets in their way. Can local law enforcement shoot them without waiting for a judge to rule? 2) A U.S. citizen is charged with a crime, but flees the country before a trial is held. If he knows he has the right to appear at a trial to confront witnesses against him, but declines the opportunity, can he be tried in absentia before a jury? If the jury convicts him, can he be sentenced?You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #55 February 6, 2013 QuoteYou guys having never lived in a communist controlled area or country don't have a clue what an authoritative power can do, make up or invent. You assume too much.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #56 February 6, 2013 QuoteYou guys having never lived in a communist controlled area or country don't have a clue what an authoritative power can do, make up or invent. Would a military dictatorship with a history of torture and some disappearances do? There was also press censorship, of course. That said, I don't want the US to head that way, and that's why I'm all for open due process whenever possible. I think that the question to describe what would be appropriate "due process" is a very, very valid one. I have no idea what it should look like, so as to neither compromise US safety, nor the rights of individuals (citizen or not). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #57 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteDrone strikes on US citizens in country??????? We should be afraid. No. This policy is for US citizens turned terrorist and living in other countries not friendly to the US where it makes no sense whatsoever to endanger the lives of US troops to attempt to capture them. I have NO problem with this policy. As far as I'm concerned, you give up your rights the moment you leave the country AND align yourself with terrorists bent on killing Americans. Fuck those guys. There is no evidence required, so you your second criteria is a null set. Better not take that weekend in Canada.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #58 February 6, 2013 So you don't care about our constitutional rights. Good to know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #59 February 6, 2013 QuoteSo you don't care about our constitutional rights. Good to know. Your statement is nonsense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #60 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteHow about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start. You're assuming the President simply decides by himself that a person is worth killing and then he alone signs some order to do it. That's not the case. The CIA and the military are involved. They determine who is the threat, then after deliberation on options they make a recommendation. The President then weighs the options and sometimes decides the person is so great a threat to the US, it is best for everyone he be removed from the game. All a "judicial review" would do is add 1 or 3 more people into the mix. If the CIA and military have done their jobs properly, I can't see how that would change things one iota because certainly if their evidence is strong enough to convince the President (who has to deal with the potential repercussions of the drone strike), it's going to be strong enough to convince a judge (who does not). EVERY strike on foreign soil has to be carefully weighed as a potential war starter. Do you really think the President just does it whilly-nilly? Remove "killing" and replace with "torture" and you will see the speciousness of your argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #61 February 6, 2013 QuoteAgain, technically an American citizen or not, once a guy throws in with terrorists and actively is working for them, I think the guy is fair game. The guy was an admitted traitor by definition; not simply by hyperbole. ...and again, the BoR only applies in certain cases. Let's take judges at all levels out of the process. Bank robbers....take 'em out before they terrorize a teller or two. No trial needed. BULLSHIT WITH A CAPITAL BMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #62 February 6, 2013 The CIA tells the pres the suspect is a a bad guy. The pres tells joint chief he's a bad guy. The army guy tell the drone operators to pull the trigger. What if the CIA is lying. Tell me they don't tell a few fibs now and again. When these goons run out of terrorists which the numbers are pretty low, they'll start inventing terriorists.... it's called job security. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #63 February 6, 2013 QuoteRemove "killing" and replace with "torture" and you will see the speciousness of your argument. Except, of course, we were torturing people to find out if they knew anything regards whether we knew they did or not. We didn't know. If we did know, there would be know need for torture, which, ironically, is also why torture is ineffective. You can't even know if the person your'e torturing knows AND is telling the truth until much, much later. There is a world of difference between rounding up people who happen to be in an area and torturing people who might not know anything and the targeted killing of somebody who admits they are a terrorist. Drones, now, are almost completely effective. Their time on target allows them to wait until the most opportune moment to minimize collateral damage. Just a whole host of reasons why they are so much better than sending in troops to a hostile country.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #64 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteRemove "killing" and replace with "torture" and you will see the speciousness of your argument. Except, of course, we were torturing people to find out if they knew anything regards whether we knew they did or not. We didn't know. If we did know, there would be know need for torture, which, ironically, is also why torture is ineffective. You can't even know if the person your'e torturing knows AND is telling the truth until much, much later. There is a world of difference between rounding up people who happen to be in an area and torturing people who might not know anything and the targeted killing of somebody who admits they are a terrorist. Drones, now, are almost completely effective. It's about money, job and power. Why do think the asshole went to Yeman. He's couldn't find a job here. So he went there, mouthed off, got followers and donations which might be easy to do with the retoric. Without perhaps one intention whatsoever to do any harm, just mouthing off. On the otherside we have the military industrial complex who can't wait to destroy another drone missle to be replaced for millions of dollars. And were now building a drone base in Africa. What makes you think we have the right to blow the guy under these circumstances, especially when all wev'e seen here is FBI giving fake bombs to idiots who are convinced their actually going to be a terriorist and probably had no intention to be one until the FBI showed up. This is a slippery slope... Also, why does the anti gun propose blowing up US citizens without due process. Quade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #65 February 6, 2013 Quote What makes you think we have the right to blow the guy.... I think you are confusing this thread with another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #66 February 6, 2013 Which begs the question, would you rather have water poured up you nose, or would you rather be ripped to shreds (along with your daughter, her playmates and wife) by a hellfire missile? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #67 February 6, 2013 " The President then weighs the options and sometimes decides the person is so great a threat to the US, it is best for everyone he be removed from the game. " Since WHEN did the POTUS ever have this constitutional right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #68 February 6, 2013 >would you rather have water poured up you nose, or would you rather be ripped to >shreds (along with your daughter, her playmates and wife) by a hellfire missile? Would you rather have one of your guns confiscated, or would you rather be imprisoned and tortured for 20 years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #69 February 6, 2013 Quotenot replying to anybody in particular, but the hostage case in Alabama doesn't really apply here. The cops and FBI talked to the hostage-taker for several days and gave him a chance to surrender. That is enough of a safeguard of his rights to constitute "due process". Let me pose two hypotheticals for you guys to gnaw on: 1) The U.S. is invaded by uniformed, armed foreign troops who begin to destroy property and kill anybody who gets in their way. Can local law enforcement shoot them without waiting for a judge to rule? Yes. I would argue that LEOs have the option to either use immediate deadly force, on sight and without warning, under war-combat rules of engagement, or to capture them. If they're captured, they must be treated according to the Geneva Convention. Since they're uniformed troops, I'm pretty sure (I haven't looked it up) that the Geneva Convention prohibits them from being prosecuted under civilian criminal law. But they may be detained, humanely, for the duration of hostilities. Quote2) A U.S. citizen is charged with a crime, but flees the country before a trial is held. If he knows he has the right to appear at a trial to confront witnesses against him, but declines the opportunity, can he be tried in absentia before a jury? If the jury convicts him, can he be sentenced? In my professional opinion, any trial and/or sentencing in absentia under American law is unconstitutional. Some prosecutors, lawyers and judges would probably disagree with me. In the face of such disagreement, I would stand by my position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #70 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote What makes you think we have the right to blow the guy.... I think you are confusing this thread with another. Quote I so glad you are reading closely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #71 February 6, 2013 Quote He thinks civil, criminal, and misdemeanor traffic offenses are all the same. Apparently neither you nor Marc can't tell the difference between "guilty" and "liable". I can suggest a good dictionary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #72 February 6, 2013 Quote" The President then weighs the options and sometimes decides the person is so great a threat to the US, it is best for everyone he be removed from the game. " Since WHEN did the POTUS ever have this constitutional right? Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 . . . depending on how the Supreme Court (not, you) interprets it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #73 February 6, 2013 Isn't is fascinating that many of the same people who were horrified at what happened at Abu Grahib to Iraqi citizens, are the same ones who are perfectly OK with killing Americans without due process? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #74 February 6, 2013 QuoteIsn't is fascinating that many of the same people who were horrified at what happened at Abu Grahib to Iraqi citizens, are the same ones who are perfectly OK with killing Americans without due process? Still trying to justify the unjustifiable, I see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #75 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteIsn't is fascinating that many of the same people who were horrified at what happened at Abu Grahib to Iraqi citizens, are the same ones who are perfectly OK with killing Americans without due process? Still trying to justify the unjustifiable, I see. What am I justifying? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites