Ask Me Help Desk

Droning

Hello:

Obama is killing American citizens WITHOUT due process. They ARE terrorists, however... Or, not. Without a trial, who's to say? Is it better to kill our enemy THIS way, or should we capture them and give them a trial? Why should we risk our soldiers lives to kill them, when droning is so easy? If arbitrarily killing American citizens is LEGAL, can the government do it in Texas or NY?

Did you know that your LOCAL government has drones as small as a mosquito? Is this GOOD?

excon

PS> Yes, Steve, it DOES piss me off!

So just to be clear... if Americans are leading AQ overseas ,you believe we should not target them ? I understand your slippery slope scenario ;and that should be guarded against.. But from what I saw of the legal opinion;it appears to be very limitting .
The wacking of Al Awlaki was NOT arbitrary .

It is easy, just kidnap them from Texas and take them outside the US to kill them.

I don't know, I live outside of the US, and I am teaching law school students American culture to help use it in negotiations with US.

I think I need a bomb shelter

Hello again, tom:

I didn't say one way or the other. I'm willing to be convinced... But, telling me that the killing of Al-Alwaki wasn't arbitrary ISN'T the way to do it.. It absolutely WAS arbitrary extra legal, and clearly unConstitutional..

excon

PS> I THINK you meant him.. Al Maliki is the president of Iraq, and very much alive.

Remember Fort Hood. Had Johnny Jihad Walker Lindh been killed in battle instead of captured ,would that have been an unconsitutional act ?

Hello again, tom:

Hey.. Take a chill pill. I'm asking for some rational discussion - not ad hoc accusations..

You've said a number of times, that the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact, and I argued against that. But, the world has changed, and I'm not sure WHERE I come down on things of this nature...

The war we're involved in, is NOT conventional. When we THOUGHT it was, we LOST bigtime. If we're going to fight and win, it takes special ops to do it. I APPLAUD killing our enemy's WITHOUT endangering American troops. I DECRY the collateral damage we entail by killing innocent's ALONG with the bad guy. We're operating in countries that we're NOT authorized to be in, and doing things we've NEVER done before...

I'm interested in a conversation about it - not right wing schtick. Want to join?

excon

Actually the right wing opinion forums are coming down against this.. but I think it's who is in office that is the major determining factor in their thinking . The Dems have demonized the right wing;and they are concerned about the same slippery slope issues .

But as I said ; the white paper as I read it is very narrow and specific . I'm not sure it would even apply to anyone else besides Al-Alwaki .

But I can see it being expanded . Let's say an American goes a foreign nation we are not friendly with , and is in the process of attempting a cyber attack on a nuclear plant .We can't extradict ; and that American is already in the process of breaking through the fire-wall. Short of taking that American out ,there will be a meltdown. Can we wait for a trial ?

Let's say just for argument sake that an American engineer was in Iran's Fordow nuclear facility a couple weeks ago ;and the explosion there that resulted in the death of over 40 there was a deliberate covert sabotage by us . Should we have waited to make sure that engineer got his day in court ?

There is talk of this policy being expanded in the domestic US . I'm almost certainly opposed to that... but I'm willing to hear arguments on that too.

Glad to see you're not happy about it. My point was the utter hypocrisy in the vicious attacks on Bush in the media and congress for virtually anything he did while once again Obama largely gets a pass - and for taking things further - with the legal justification trotted out by the same guy that ripped Bush.

I have no problem taking out a clear threat like Awlaki, but there's some arbitrary language in there that should have people concerned.

Quote:

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

I think we need a little more defining here but I'm on board with Democratic Sen. Wyden as well...

Quote:

In an interview, Wyden accused the administration of stonewalling. “The idea that the president has this extraordinary power that can be utilized in secret without any oversight or accountability, I think is wrong and detrimental to the public interest,” he said.

Accountability? Obama don't need no stinkin' accountability, or transparency, or Congress... he is the imperial president. Might as well start calling him Your Highness.

Just wondering what people would be saying about this if the underware bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab ,had successfully detonated his bomb on a Christmas day ,in a full Airbus ,above Detroit.

Maybe this drone thing is going to hit close to home sooner then we think.

Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Reservations'

Hello again,

That law codifies the loss of our 5th Amendment rights to due process... Bush started it, but Obama embraced it.

excon

I contend due process does not apply on the battlefield .
If the president ; commander in chief,doesn't have the power to determine whether a “targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.,” who would you give that authority to ?
A judge ? A judge would have to balance the threat of an imminent attack against the terrorist's right to due process .No judge is capable of such a decision. ;or the responsibility to make such national security judgments.
And no judge has no authority to make national security decisions.
This is about war ;not law enforcement .

Tom you are right, this is a war and opportunist though it maybe action must be taken against terrorists to prevent greater loss of life, drones represent the preemptive strike. I think ex needs to demonstrate that they kill more innocents than terrorists

Hello again, clete:

Quote:

I think ex needs to demonstrate that they kill more innocents than terrorists

How many does it take?

Excon

Ex

What I am eluding to is recent US "facts" which suggest that the drones take out more militants than innocents

The choice for me is simple, I don't care who he is or where he was born, if you get an enemy who mean to kill you in the cross hairs, pull the trigger and argue legalities after. If you let them hide amongst people who may, or may not be innocent, that's what they will do.

What you think the guys kid in Yemen was going to grow up and be an American loving anti terrorist? I don't. Nor do I think the coward terrorist should have a safe, secure place to plan and carry out those plans either.

That's how you fight a war, with guns and bullets and not lawyers and judges. Nobody said a damn thing when seal team 6 stormed OBL's compound and killed a few of his cohorts along with him except well done. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

This operation merits the same thing in my book. Whose next? How about that guy in Syria? Gimme the joystick, I'll do it.

Go for it Tal let's bring terror to terrorists, this is something they understand, let them go crawl back under their rock and hide from the all seeing eye.

See Tal and I can come to a consensus.

I think there is even more consensus here Tom drones fror everyone

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

see Tal and I can come to a concensus.

We seem to meet in strange places :)

What I marvel at is the hypocrisy of the current adm. They would get tongue tied over the idea of having to mutter the words 'war on terror'... they called it "man-caused disasters," The Ft. Hood massacre they called "workplace violence."

Also it is great that they've finally come around to the doctrine of preemption. From the memo :the condition that an operation leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself.”

Just a thought... under these ROE's ,didn't the attack on the 'special mission' in Benghazi merit a drone strike or 2 ?

This whole droning thing is but a prequel for Brennan's nomination hearings. The intelligence committee chairman has already said he was briefed fully on all the drone strikes so far and he is a republican. Rogers from MI.

Its like those guys who could have had their questions answered with a phone call, or been at the briefings, instead of reading the newspapers or Fox news for intelligence. Now they worry about rights of an idiot who takes credit for plots, and plans, and hides among so called innocent Yemen's.

Give me a break please, they had 3 years or more to holler about killing Americans, and they didn't. Now they are worried?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

This whole droning thing is but a prequel for Brennan's nomination hearings. The intelligence committee chairman has already said he was briefed fully on all the drone strikes so far and he is a republican. Rogers from MI.

Its like those guys who could have had their questions answered with a phone call, or been at the briefings, instead of reading the newspapers or Fox news for intelligence. Now they worry about rights of an idiot who takes credit for plots, and plans, and hides among so called innocent Yemen's.

Give me a break please, they had 3 years or more to holler about killing Americans, and they didn't. Now they are worried??

It was NBC that got the memo and made it an issue.

And you think this leak was a coincidence 4 days before a hearing? Its been known for 4 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the president himself put it out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

And you think this leak was a coincidence 4 days before a hearing? Its been known for 4 years. I wouldn'tbe surprised if the president himself put it out there.

Um, we've all known he was using drones but we did not know about the policy memo and as I said before, Democrats are pi$$ed about it too and demanding accountability, so don't paint this is some Republican witch hunt. My question for you is what if this were a Republican president, do you trust him with such unilateral power to kill an American citizen?

To be honest I would expect many questions on this new technology and some guidelines set, thoughtfully without politilization for the cameras. Yes even with law enforcement agencies also. No, doesn't matter what party is in power we do have to have protocols and policy in place as a balance to how this new technology will affect how we go forward not just as foreign policy but domestic as well.

I never characterized this as a republican witch hunt, and cited what the republican congressman from Michigan said yesterday. He was briefed about all the drone strikes according to him,and was comfortable with the results. This is a big deal, a new toy, and its been run out very slowly for 4 years to the public, and even to some in congress, so no matter who leaked it the timing is no coincidence to me and the intentions in my mind was to make this the main talking points for this hearing.

Gathering information with an open mind and not getting caught up in the politics and rhetoric of the cameras is my challenge.

Then it's confirmed that the President leaked this . This puts Brennan in a positive light in my book. Much better that this be the focus than some of his statements in the past that made him sound like a jihadist apologist.

Funny how Obama.. got his lace knickers in a knot over reditions... where we went overseas and captured suspects ALIVE and brought them back... thinks its find and dandy if we just go over and kill them instead.

Because according to the text of that memo... there was absolutely you checks and balances or even a goal post requirement before they would just go and murder someone.

Meaning if you have lots of intelligence someone actually DID do something... that would not be nearly as bad as just targeting someone because Obama has a bug up his bum because they wrote something masty about him and there was absolutely no intelligence indicating the individual was a real threat...

Which they Could do as there is no required Bar to reach. I honestly believe Obama is capable of and would order people that oposed him murdered because of his well documented narcisism and disdain for things like the law and the constitution that are too numerous to count and only increasing in numbers.

Hello smoothy:

You demonstrate the right wing apoplexy. You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers..

excon

Quote:

You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers.

This is so true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

You demonstrate the right wing apoplexy. You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers..

excon

I'm fine with killing the enemy, I'm fine with drone strikes on real and known enemies... I oppose a man like Obama arbitrarily being allowed to decide on his own who we should kill without any proof.

That memo requires NO proof the person they intend to kill ever did anything... or even plans to do anything... Obama can just emerge for his opium den or reading his chicken entrails and decide who to kill.

Particularly since Obama thinks it's a violation of their rights to grab them in a Rendition, to find out if they are who we think and find out what they know... but its not a violation of their rights just to arbitrarily kill them.

Hello again, NK:

Right wingers are a funny sort. They complain, and complain about Obama NOT being transparent... But, when he IS, they call it a leak..

excon

No, we just understand the definition of transparency.

Seems to me after watching the Brennan confirmation hearings the process of transparency is opening up. Funny how you guys want others to change while you don't have too. Just an observation, no knock(?).

Glad most of us agree that Americans that work for the enemy in foreign lands can be eliminated if no other course of action is viable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

You demonstrate the right wing apoplexy. You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers..

excon

Just demonstrates that the President can get something right /

Hello tal:

I'm conflicted.

I'm a STAUNCH Constitutionalist, AND a veteran of war. I LOVE that we kill our enemy WITHOUT putting our sons and daughters in harms way. The question before us, though, is an American citizen, who has ALLIED himself with our enemy, ENTITLED to civil rights.

I say yes/no.

excon

I say hell NO!! Action speak louder than words and this fellow in Yemen was a leader of the enemy. As are those guys in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Algeria, Syria, and a whole lot of places where gun toting criminals do bad things to good people.

Include the armed nut in California to that list while I am at it. I am not conflicted at all and they better get George Zimmerman too. Maybe not with a hellfire missile fired from a drone, HEHEHE, but get 'em.

Yeah I got a list too and checkin' it twice.

Well I actually understand Ex's concern. With this POTUS... telling La Raza who the enemy is,and Big sis saying righties are domestic terrorists ;the President bringing a drone to a knife fight is a valid concern.

I approve the policy for the extremely limitted application that the memo cites. It was almost written exlusively for the target it was used on. I'll take future applications into consideration on their merit.

I agree Tom, but worrying about the Prez droning his political opponents is a stretch, amusing but a stretch, as he seems content to use his bully pulpit against you guys. I think congress will be a lot more involved now and ask plenty of questions.

A warrant for some strikes may be coming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, NK:

Right wingers are a funny sort. They complain, and complain about Obama NOT being transparent... But, when he IS, they call it a leak..

excon

And incidentally... HE didn't release that memo... it was leaked by someone in the inside. HUGE difference.