will only take direct action when there is ânear certaintyâ that the terrorist target is present and that noncombatants wonât be killed or injured.
Oh my god, only ânearâ certainty. How reckless!
Oh yeah, just remembered. Trump thinks we should outright kill the terrorists families
Canât wait for my he lamestream media to pick up on it.
This ânew guidanceâ is precipitated no doubt by the recent drone attacks in Somalia. The attacks killed 150 people that the U.S. declared were âSomali militantsâ but no evidence was ever presented to support the claim. The U.S. is not at war with Somalia and no use of force there has been authorized by Congress.
Obama the Nobel Peace Prize recipient seems to believe that he has the right to kill whomever he pleases wherever he pleases. Simply declaring that they were âterroristsâ is the only justification he believes is necessary. His targets have included U.S. citizens supposedly protected by Constitutional rights.
Obama the Constitutional law professor claims that there are two types of âprocessâ of law under the Constitutionââdue processâ and âjudicial process.â American citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki did not need to have evidence presented in a court and a warrant issued, because thatâs âdue processâ and Obama determined (by some secret means) that al-Awlaki was such a threat to America that he only required âjudicial processâ and therefore could be assassinated.
I donât think much of these âguidanceâ for use-of-force releases by the White House. They are not about procedure to prevent overreach but instead are public relations documents meant to give these atrocities a veneer of legitimacy.
Thanks for that Joseph55. Couldnât have said it better myself. But Iâm still angry by the decade long yawn of the Democratic Party as it relates to the indiscriminate killing of the poorest of the poor in six (seven?) sovereign nations. All of which by the way happen to be Muslim. Weâre responsible these past fifty years for more terrorism than the rest of the industrial world combined. But the AUMF says itâs all legal, which draws to the obvious conclusion that itâs Americans as the victims. Nicely done Mr. President.
I guess you didnât realize that, unlike Nazi Germany, we are not at war with Somalia. I even took the time to point that out in my comment, even though I thought it was obvious.
Alwaki refused his due process dopey. And he was advocating violence against the US, including communications with some people who killed people here. Tough shit on him.
Everyone does not get to go to court. If you are in JFK aiming a gun at people, the FBI does not have to arrest you and bring you to court. The right move is to shoot that person and stop the threat. âDue processâ was a direct threat being âevaluatedâ.
So due process is indeed a relative term. And it should not be abused for sure. In Alwakiâs case it was NOT abused. In fact, even the Yemeniâs were trying to get him because he was a POS who not only advocated violence, but directly communicated and incited people who did. And he was in a remote area where he could not be apprehended. So, he got blown away. Tough shit on him.
We are not at war with Pakistan either, but we still blew bin Ladenâs ass away.
The Constitution says that Americans have the right of due process. That means a prosecutor presents evidence and gets an indictment. The Constitution doesnât say, âexcept if the President says someone is so dangerous that he can then be assassinated on his word,â or, âunless someone says such evil things that he can then be considered no longer a citizen and then can be assassinated.â No, the Constitution doesnât have any exceptions at all to the right of due process.
I wonât call you a dummy (or whatever it was you called me) for not knowing that, however.
No, we are not going to compromise our civil right guaranteed under the Constitution, regardless of terrorism (or racism or sexism or anything else that someone might claim âblurs the linesâ).
Donât waste your time with these two. Iâm sure you have better things to do.
Iâm curious about what you would say if, say, the Philippines had assassinated Ferdinand Marco in the US after he was deposed and sought asylum here? Or if Iran had assassinated the Shah after he left the country? Or if Mexico decides to enter US territory to assassinate an alleged drug kingpin responsible for murders? I think in each of those cases, those governments could make the case that not only were those individuals responsible for many, many murders of their own citizens, but they were actively plotting against the current regimes. We have harbored murderers many times in the past.
Does the idea that we can pursue those whom we deem to be terrorists wherever we find them, apply to other governments when they do the same thing in our borders? Or is that a right that is exclusive to us because we are the good guys?
Have you actually read the Constitution Mr. Trump??
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Some asshole who canât be captured and is encouraging the killing of Americans (and succeeding at it) is a public danger.
Unreal, like a Bagger, talk about the Constitution with no clue what it says. Wow.
I see your distinction but Iâm not trying to conflate anything. Iâm making the point that terrorism is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. To us, the Shah was a former head of state, but to the new Iranian government, he had terrorized a large segment of the population for years and we abetted him.
To the British after WW2, Menachem Begin was a terrorist, but to the new Israeli government he was a freedom fighter. To Argentina, the military figures who trained in our country went home and tortured and killed thousands. We enabled that, and took in their exiled commanders after they lost power. To Cuba, the CIA financed invasion troops were a hostile force, but we considered them freedom fighters and harbored them after the failed mission. There are lots of examples of the same dynamic at work.
When we decide to pursue someone whom we consider to be a terrorist across a border into a country with whom we are not at war, what do we say when another country decides to do the same to us?
I becomes even more complicated when we make the decision in secret, and we decide to identify every person in the area of the subject as a potential terrorist, and accept their death as âcollateral damageâ
I understand the urge to strike avowed enemies of our country, but I think the international issues are more complicated than we let on, and if we were the smaller dog instead of the biggest one, we might see it differently.
The Constitution says that the exception to due process must only be âcases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the MilitiaâŚâ
The part that follows, âwhen in actual service in time of War or public danger,â only applies when the first part (about armed forces) applies!
You are seizing on the words âor public dangerâ as a catch-all, meaning to you that all that needs to be the case is that something be determined a public danger, and then due process can go out the window. In fact, the authors of the Constitution were determined to make this exception truly exceptionalâthey clearly meant only in the case of war!
Sorry, you canât extract two words from the Constitution without context and use it to justify extrajudicial assassinations!
I wonât, however, make exclamations about how âunrealâ you are or what a knucklehead you must be for your ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution.
Look up the word âORâ.
Yes, they are saying the military can take action during times of public danger. Duh.
And Awalkiâs situation was ongoing for years. There was plenty of evidence he was a direct threat to the US and a definite public danger. You make it sound like Obama woke up one day and said âhey, letâs waste that guy, Iâm in the mood to kill someone todayâ.
Once again, what you are saying is that if a guy has a shoulder fired missile aimed at a plane at JFK and is about to fire, the police canât shoot him, they have to instead let him shoot and then arrest him. THAT is what YOUR ridiculous interpretation says.
How about 9/11? The VP issued s Shoot Down order for non-responsive Aircraft. There was no âwarâ going on, but I think after two planes were crashed into buildings, it was the right move. But by your interpretation the VP had no right to do that? Seriously?
Unfortunately they could not get to 77 before it hit the Pentagon, all those people in the Pentagon could have been saved by what you are saying was an âunconstitutionalâ order. And if not for Airfones and such, Flight 93 would have needed to be shot down before it got to DC. Again, hundreds of lives would have been saved.
Get serious please. What you are saying is the equivalent of people saying that because the 2nd Amendment mentions militia, that means no one can have a gun. But the proper argument is that such language in no way guarantees that EVERYONE has a right to own a gun, that these things need to be regulated based on situation. Just like public danger depends on the situation.
[quote=âanswerfrog, post:24, topic:41619â]
But if you have the view that it is all relative, that terrorism is just a label and ISIS is no different than freedom fighters of the past, well I donât think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had here.
[/quote]When you frame my argument in your terms instead of in mine, you are right, there is no discussion to be had here. I never made that argument. I canât tell whether you are intentionally misstating my points to âwinâ, or whether you canât accept the concept that everything isnât binary, and that we are just as capable of using propaganda ourselves for political purposes.
[quote=âanswerfrog, post:28, topic:41619â]
Itâs a dumb âfreshman undergradâ argument disconnected from the real world.
[/quote]Ahhh! Nice double down on your previous comments, while ignoring everything that I said in an attempt to have a conversation. And several lovely insults thrown in to boot. Thanks for playing. You really ought to try being less of a dick. Have it your way.