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 :)