Honestly folks how did we let this happen?

[bendog]

Isn't the issue really not whether or not an American citizen is targeted, but that our engaging in wars in the middle east is Unconstitutional since it's not for actual defense of the United States? If the war is constitutional, then I don't see the citizenship of who we target believing they are engaged in attacking America would be. And if the war is not constitutional, I don't see caring about the citizenship of who we target either, we shouldn't be doing it.

Well, I really do disagree there because I think it's vitally important that we afford US citizens some due process regardless of what they've done, or where they are. But, it's pretty juvenile to not admit that clerics preaching destruction of the US from a venue where we cannot arrest them get to play by the same rules you and I get.

However, I certainly do agree that Obama has not made the case for why we're targeting Taliban with nominal ties to US terrorism ... and I think W was clearly off the reservation too, for that matter.

So if an American citizen was in Germany assisting the Germans in WWII, you'd expect us to convict them in an American court before trying to kill them?

Now, now. I'm trying to play nice. "Due process" is a term that applies in different situations in different ways.

Legal Definition of Due Process

I think the link is correct that at the core it means "fairness." To me, fairness for the cleric, or a Nazi sympathizer in WWII Germany, would entail some notice that what he's doing is dangerous to the US, and we consider it a crime, and while we cannot extradite him, unless he desists we may take action to either extrajudically arrest him or flat out kill him. Rather than having the exec branch make this decision, I'd prefer the judiciary have some means of weighing the evidence to see if it's clear the individual is endangering us.

As for the cleric, besides having some judicial finding, imo the bastard got due process.

 

[BlindBoo]

Dullard.

So you're okay with Americans joining al Qaeda, helping to plot the killing of other Americans wherever and whenever they can huh?

You hate President Obama that much?

Or you just going to stick with(perhaps double down on) your arbitrary nonsense?

No, we are not secure with the CIA being judge, jury and executioner.

So you think they targeted Al-Awlaki arbitrary, for no good or real reason?

 

[bendog]

Isn't the issue really not whether or not an American citizen is targeted, but that our engaging in wars in the middle east is Unconstitutional since it's not for actual defense of the United States? If the war is constitutional, then I don't see the citizenship of who we target believing they are engaged in attacking America would be. And if the war is not constitutional, I don't see caring about the citizenship of who we target either, we shouldn't be doing it.

We're pretty f'in far past deciding whether or not the wars are constitutional. Now we've also moved on to arbitrarily, evidence free, as evidence is used in courts, not assassination lists, whether its OK to kill them based on whims, not the law.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems hard to separate since it's still fruit of the poisoned tree. How can you validate killing an American in an invalid war? I have a hard time making that distinction.

Well, we've never required that there be formal declaration of war prior to taking some military action. It turns more or less upon duration of the action and whether the action we take is politically palatable. For example, supporting the rape and murder of Mary Knoll sisters sometimes raises the ire of the public. It bothers me that we don't always get a bit miffed at that. But, chasing down Che for being the murdering sociopath he was, never bothered me.

 

[kaz]

Well, I really do disagree there because I think it's vitally important that we afford US citizens some due process regardless of what they've done, or where they are. But, it's pretty juvenile to not admit that clerics preaching destruction of the US from a venue where we cannot arrest them get to play by the same rules you and I get.

However, I certainly do agree that Obama has not made the case for why we're targeting Taliban with nominal ties to US terrorism ... and I think W was clearly off the reservation too, for that matter.

So if an American citizen was in Germany assisting the Germans in WWII, you'd expect us to convict them in an American court before trying to kill them?

Now, now. I'm trying to play nice. "Due process" is a term that applies in different situations in different ways.

Legal Definition of Due Process

I think the link is correct that at the core it means "fairness." To me, fairness for the cleric, or a Nazi sympathizer in WWII Germany, would entail some notice that what he's doing is dangerous to the US, and we consider it a crime, and while we cannot extradite him, unless he desists we may take action to either extrajudically arrest him or flat out kill him. Rather than having the exec branch make this decision, I'd prefer the judiciary have some means of weighing the evidence to see if it's clear the individual is endangering us.

As for the cleric, besides having some judicial finding, imo the bastard got due process.

I said someone who was assisting the Nazis, not a sympathizer. You're going to have to show me if anyone was killed with a drone because they just sympathized with the terrorists.

So seriously, in WWII, if an American citizen was assisting the Nazis, you would try to contact them in Germany and let them know that's bad before just trying to kill them?

Keep in mind my position is that for Americans not in America is that the primary determinant is whether the American participation in the war is Constitutional. War for defense of the United States is Constitutional. Iraq was not Constitutional under HW, Clinton, W or Obama, so I am not arguing we should be killing Americans there with drones.

 

[kaz]

We're pretty f'in far past deciding whether or not the wars are constitutional. Now we've also moved on to arbitrarily, evidence free, as evidence is used in courts, not assassination lists, whether its OK to kill them based on whims, not the law.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems hard to separate since it's still fruit of the poisoned tree. How can you validate killing an American in an invalid war? I have a hard time making that distinction.

Well, we've never required that there be formal declaration of war prior to taking some military action. It turns more or less upon duration of the action and whether the action we take is politically palatable. For example, supporting the rape and murder of Mary Knoll sisters sometimes raises the ire of the public. It bothers me that we don't always get a bit miffed at that. But, chasing down Che for being the murdering sociopath he was, never bothered me.

I'm not arguing the point whether congress technically declared war. Congress can only declare a war Constitutionally for one reason, defense of the United States. Congress declaring war for any other reason, like securing oil, is not Constitutional anyway because that isn't a Federal authority. Defense is a Federal authority.

I realize Republicans have made that argument, but can you focus on what I'm arguing, not what someone else argued? And I'm not even a Republican.

 

[bendog]

So if an American citizen was in Germany assisting the Germans in WWII, you'd expect us to convict them in an American court before trying to kill them?

Now, now. I'm trying to play nice. "Due process" is a term that applies in different situations in different ways.

Legal Definition of Due Process

I think the link is correct that at the core it means "fairness." To me, fairness for the cleric, or a Nazi sympathizer in WWII Germany, would entail some notice that what he's doing is dangerous to the US, and we consider it a crime, and while we cannot extradite him, unless he desists we may take action to either extrajudically arrest him or flat out kill him. Rather than having the exec branch make this decision, I'd prefer the judiciary have some means of weighing the evidence to see if it's clear the individual is endangering us.

As for the cleric, besides having some judicial finding, imo the bastard got due process.

I said someone who was assisting the Nazis, not a sympathizer. You're going to have to show me if anyone was killed with a drone because they just sympathized with the terrorists.

So seriously, in WWII, if an American citizen was assisting the Nazis, you would try to contact them in Germany and let them know that's bad before just trying to kill them?

Keep in mind my position is that for Americans not in America is that the primary determinant is whether the American participation in the war is Constitutional. War for defense of the United States is Constitutional. Iraq was not Constitutional under HW, Clinton, W or Obama, so I am not arguing we should be killing Americans there with drones.

I'm sorry. I assumed my post covered someone assisting the Nazis in their war effort.

I think when we get into whether war is constititutional or not it confuses me. It is LEGAL to use military force simply by executive decree under War Powers. It's a political question as to whether the action is necessary to protect a vital interest.

For me, the cleric in Yemen satisfied the vital interest requirement. Killing Taliban in Pakistan .... not so much.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So we should stop killing terrorist?
So we should stop spying on our enemies? I am not talking about the American people as that's clearly a problem. A line must be drawn in the sand.
So signing statements are unconstitutional. How do you explain Washington's and Adams signing statements? Besides most of this power was granted by congress. Oh'yess the ones that have the power to do so!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Now, now. I'm trying to play nice. "Due process" is a term that applies in different situations in different ways.

Legal Definition of Due Process

I think the link is correct that at the core it means "fairness." To me, fairness for the cleric, or a Nazi sympathizer in WWII Germany, would entail some notice that what he's doing is dangerous to the US, and we consider it a crime, and while we cannot extradite him, unless he desists we may take action to either extrajudically arrest him or flat out kill him. Rather than having the exec branch make this decision, I'd prefer the judiciary have some means of weighing the evidence to see if it's clear the individual is endangering us.

As for the cleric, besides having some judicial finding, imo the bastard got due process.

I said someone who was assisting the Nazis, not a sympathizer. You're going to have to show me if anyone was killed with a drone because they just sympathized with the terrorists.

So seriously, in WWII, if an American citizen was assisting the Nazis, you would try to contact them in Germany and let them know that's bad before just trying to kill them?

Keep in mind my position is that for Americans not in America is that the primary determinant is whether the American participation in the war is Constitutional. War for defense of the United States is Constitutional. Iraq was not Constitutional under HW, Clinton, W or Obama, so I am not arguing we should be killing Americans there with drones.

I'm sorry. I assumed my post covered someone assisting the Nazis in their war effort.

I think when we get into whether war is constititutional or not it confuses me. It is LEGAL to use military force simply by executive decree under War Powers. It's a political question as to whether the action is necessary to protect a vital interest.

For me, the cleric in Yemen satisfied the vital interest requirement. Killing Taliban in Pakistan .... not so much.

SO killing terrorist that hide in another country that organize to KILL our troops, Isn't in our interest.

 

[bendog]

I understand what you're saying, but it seems hard to separate since it's still fruit of the poisoned tree. How can you validate killing an American in an invalid war? I have a hard time making that distinction.

Well, we've never required that there be formal declaration of war prior to taking some military action. It turns more or less upon duration of the action and whether the action we take is politically palatable. For example, supporting the rape and murder of Mary Knoll sisters sometimes raises the ire of the public. It bothers me that we don't always get a bit miffed at that. But, chasing down Che for being the murdering sociopath he was, never bothered me.

I'm not arguing the point whether congress technically declared war. Congress can only declare a war Constitutionally for one reason, defense of the United States. Congress declaring war for any other reason, like securing oil, is not Constitutional anyway because that isn't a Federal authority. Defense is a Federal authority.

I realize Republicans have made that argument, but can you focus on what I'm arguing, not what someone else argued? And I'm not even a Republican.

I understand your position, but I'm not sure I can agree 100%. The Mexican and Spanish American wars were not "really" about defense. The Maine most likely was not mined. But, we determined we had a vital interest. This is what's interesting to me about Putin in Crimea. Frankly, Russia has an interest. However, I think both the Mexican and Spanish wars would be illegal under post-WWII intl law.

But, if some country said they would shut the Straights of Hormuz, for example, that action would put the US and probably the world into recession, and that would not just economically hurt, but hurt the prosperitity and even health of us ... and more so the world. So, I'm ok with war over that.

Post-W we no longer have the military capability to influence the Russians. But, yes, if Putin was clearly intent on recreating a mini-set to buffer states, then I think that would qualify.

 

[bendog]

I said someone who was assisting the Nazis, not a sympathizer. You're going to have to show me if anyone was killed with a drone because they just sympathized with the terrorists.

So seriously, in WWII, if an American citizen was assisting the Nazis, you would try to contact them in Germany and let them know that's bad before just trying to kill them?

Keep in mind my position is that for Americans not in America is that the primary determinant is whether the American participation in the war is Constitutional. War for defense of the United States is Constitutional. Iraq was not Constitutional under HW, Clinton, W or Obama, so I am not arguing we should be killing Americans there with drones.

I'm sorry. I assumed my post covered someone assisting the Nazis in their war effort.

I think when we get into whether war is constititutional or not it confuses me. It is LEGAL to use military force simply by executive decree under War Powers. It's a political question as to whether the action is necessary to protect a vital interest.

For me, the cleric in Yemen satisfied the vital interest requirement. Killing Taliban in Pakistan .... not so much.

SO killing terrorist that hide in another country that organize to KILL our troops, Isn't in our interest.

I didn't say that. I actually said the opposite. We can and should kill them. I'm just not happy with Obama or W being the final "decider" of who lives or dies.

 

[kaz]

Now, now. I'm trying to play nice. "Due process" is a term that applies in different situations in different ways.

Legal Definition of Due Process

I think the link is correct that at the core it means "fairness." To me, fairness for the cleric, or a Nazi sympathizer in WWII Germany, would entail some notice that what he's doing is dangerous to the US, and we consider it a crime, and while we cannot extradite him, unless he desists we may take action to either extrajudically arrest him or flat out kill him. Rather than having the exec branch make this decision, I'd prefer the judiciary have some means of weighing the evidence to see if it's clear the individual is endangering us.

As for the cleric, besides having some judicial finding, imo the bastard got due process.

I said someone who was assisting the Nazis, not a sympathizer. You're going to have to show me if anyone was killed with a drone because they just sympathized with the terrorists.

So seriously, in WWII, if an American citizen was assisting the Nazis, you would try to contact them in Germany and let them know that's bad before just trying to kill them?

Keep in mind my position is that for Americans not in America is that the primary determinant is whether the American participation in the war is Constitutional. War for defense of the United States is Constitutional. Iraq was not Constitutional under HW, Clinton, W or Obama, so I am not arguing we should be killing Americans there with drones.

I'm sorry. I assumed my post covered someone assisting the Nazis in their war effort.

I think when we get into whether war is constititutional or not it confuses me. It is LEGAL to use military force simply by executive decree under War Powers. It's a political question as to whether the action is necessary to protect a vital interest.

For me, the cleric in Yemen satisfied the vital interest requirement. Killing Taliban in Pakistan .... not so much.

The only use of the military the Constitution gives the Federal government is "defence" of the United States. Government cannot grant itself powers. By the 10th amendment, they are prohibited from doing anything else, including wars of convenience or because you or Congress thinks golly, we should.

 

[MikeK]

Well, if an American citizen puts himself in a geographic location where it is impossible to obtain physical custody of him, and thereby give him due process via a court by attempting to prove he has committed crimes endangering American lives, does he just get a free pass? I'd agree if we proposed there should be some process in which a non-political appointee, such as a criminal court, made some finding that the individual could either choose to present himself for trial or suffer extra-judicial consequenses, i.e. a drone.

Why not just write him off as a suspected turncoat subject to arrest and trial when and if opportunity arises? Why is it necessary to risk the potential consequences of collateral fatalities if a drone strike goes wrong?

Beginning with the absolutely unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, and considering the Abu Ghraib revelations, the Guantanamo Bay abuses, and many more infamous cruelties and offenses against innocent civilians, what we see are the results of rampant arrogance and incompetence on the part of officials and personnel whose actions, perpetrated in your name and mine, have not only ruined our national reputation beyond redemption, but have incited the passionate hatred of millions of enemies we didn't have before. Enemies who have little to lose and who are willing to trade their lives to strike at us. What benefit can possibly come from emulating ancient Rome?

How long will it be before some of these cultivated enemies manage to acquire a nuclear weapon and bring it here?

 

[kaz]

So we should stop killing terrorist?

Non-sequitur.

So we should stop spying on our enemies? I am not talking about the American people as that's clearly a problem. A line must be drawn in the sand.

Strawman

So signing statements are unconstitutional. How do you explain Washington's and Adams signing statements? Besides most of this power was granted by congress. Oh'yess the ones that have the power to do so!

No idea what that means.

 

[bendog]

I said someone who was assisting the Nazis, not a sympathizer. You're going to have to show me if anyone was killed with a drone because they just sympathized with the terrorists.

So seriously, in WWII, if an American citizen was assisting the Nazis, you would try to contact them in Germany and let them know that's bad before just trying to kill them?

Keep in mind my position is that for Americans not in America is that the primary determinant is whether the American participation in the war is Constitutional. War for defense of the United States is Constitutional. Iraq was not Constitutional under HW, Clinton, W or Obama, so I am not arguing we should be killing Americans there with drones.

I'm sorry. I assumed my post covered someone assisting the Nazis in their war effort.

I think when we get into whether war is constititutional or not it confuses me. It is LEGAL to use military force simply by executive decree under War Powers. It's a political question as to whether the action is necessary to protect a vital interest.

For me, the cleric in Yemen satisfied the vital interest requirement. Killing Taliban in Pakistan .... not so much.

The only use of the military the Constitution gives the Federal government is "defence" of the United States. Government cannot grant itself powers. By the 10th amendment, they are prohibited from doing anything else, including wars of convenience or because you or Congress thinks golly, we should.

I'm not aware of any legal authority supporting a notion that defense of the US does not include defense against another country using econ means, such as embargos, to damage our economy or well being of the citizens. So, there we have to disagree. But, it's been a pleasure.

 

[kaz]

Well, we've never required that there be formal declaration of war prior to taking some military action. It turns more or less upon duration of the action and whether the action we take is politically palatable. For example, supporting the rape and murder of Mary Knoll sisters sometimes raises the ire of the public. It bothers me that we don't always get a bit miffed at that. But, chasing down Che for being the murdering sociopath he was, never bothered me.

I'm not arguing the point whether congress technically declared war. Congress can only declare a war Constitutionally for one reason, defense of the United States. Congress declaring war for any other reason, like securing oil, is not Constitutional anyway because that isn't a Federal authority. Defense is a Federal authority.

I realize Republicans have made that argument, but can you focus on what I'm arguing, not what someone else argued? And I'm not even a Republican.

I understand your position, but I'm not sure I can agree 100%. The Mexican and Spanish American wars were not "really" about defense. The Maine most likely was not mined. But, we determined we had a vital interest. This is what's interesting to me about Putin in Crimea. Frankly, Russia has an interest. However, I think both the Mexican and Spanish wars would be illegal under post-WWII intl law.

But, if some country said they would shut the Straights of Hormuz, for example, that action would put the US and probably the world into recession, and that would not just economically hurt, but hurt the prosperitity and even health of us ... and more so the world. So, I'm ok with war over that.

Post-W we no longer have the military capability to influence the Russians. But, yes, if Putin was clearly intent on recreating a mini-set to buffer states, then I think that would qualify.

You jumped around a bit, I'll try to cover the main points. Tell me if I missed anything.

Mexican American War - We had a right, but not a responsibility to get into that. I clearly think defense of the United States includes protecting Americans in international water or in other countries. Americans went into land technically owned but sparsely occupied by Mexico. Then they got into conflict with Mexicans. We weren't under an obligation to help them, but I don't see how we were prohibiting from doing so. I have a hard time seeing a modern applicability of this. There are no longer large areas of sparsely occupied land that isn't clearly owned. On the open seas, I do support our right to for example blast the crap out of the Somali pirates operating in international waters.

Spanish American War - Clearly an Unconstitutional war. It's the only actually purely Empire building war we ever entered, and it was for that reason hugely opposed by a great many Americans for that reason. Up until then, every empire expanded. We were emerging, Spain was waning. We did it once, we didn't do it again.

As for the straits of Hormuz, again, there is no Federal authority to provide oil. However, there is to protect Americans, it depends what's happening.

Russia - I'm not sure I get what you're saying on the capability.

 

[kaz]

I'm sorry. I assumed my post covered someone assisting the Nazis in their war effort.

I think when we get into whether war is constititutional or not it confuses me. It is LEGAL to use military force simply by executive decree under War Powers. It's a political question as to whether the action is necessary to protect a vital interest.

For me, the cleric in Yemen satisfied the vital interest requirement. Killing Taliban in Pakistan .... not so much.

The only use of the military the Constitution gives the Federal government is "defence" of the United States. Government cannot grant itself powers. By the 10th amendment, they are prohibited from doing anything else, including wars of convenience or because you or Congress thinks golly, we should.

I'm not aware of any legal authority supporting a notion that defense of the US does not include defense against another country using econ means, such as embargos, to damage our economy or well being of the citizens. So, there we have to disagree. But, it's been a pleasure.

I was referring to military, I didn't address embargoes. As for embargoes and economic means, the Federal government is tasked with international treaties, so from a Constitutional perspective, I'd have to concede that as long as the Senate confirms a treaty or confirms the right of an international organization (e.g., the UN or NATO) to engage in embargoes, it's Constitutional.

As a libertarian, I object to that though. Not because of the other country, but because of the burden it puts on our businesses, I don't personally think it's right for our government to restrict trade. But I have to agree Constitutionally the Federal government has the power if they follow the process of treaty ratification.

 

[Freewill]

Isn't the issue really not whether or not an American citizen is targeted, but that our engaging in wars in the middle east is Unconstitutional since it's not for actual defense of the United States? If the war is constitutional, then I don't see the citizenship of who we target believing they are engaged in attacking America would be. And if the war is not constitutional, I don't see caring about the citizenship of who we target either, we shouldn't be doing it.

Well, I really do disagree there because I think it's vitally important that we afford US citizens some due process regardless of what they've done, or where they are. But, it's pretty juvenile to not admit that clerics preaching destruction of the US from a venue where we cannot arrest them get to play by the same rules you and I get.

However, I certainly do agree that Obama has not made the case for why we're targeting Taliban with nominal ties to US terrorism ... and I think W was clearly off the reservation too, for that matter.

So if an American citizen was in Germany assisting the Germans in WWII, you'd expect us to convict them in an American court before trying to kill them?

Military court or special court, not just the CIA.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Or more so, how did it happen.

1. The NSA is spying on people with out warrant in violation of the COTUS.

2. We are assassinating people with out due process using predator drones some of them US citizens.

3. Changing law though executive fiat.

Now, it doesn't matter when or who started this but this is where we are at, how did we let this happen?

Reality tv and sporting events are much more entertaining than having to be bothered with something as petty as our civil liberties.

 

[Freewill]

I think Mac has nailed it. We're just a fat, gluttonous, slothful, country who could care less about the history that made us great. Many countries have fallen onto the ash heap with this mentality over the annals of time.

I disagree, I don't think we the people gave them anything, they took it illegally. I am not sure what the average Joe could do other then vote. But to do that intelligently the information has to be known.

I have railed against the Drone program since I found out what we were actually doing. The ACLU is supposedly investigating and is the UN. Even if that produces no results it sure doesn't make the US look good. In my opinion there is little difference between setting a car bomb and sending in a missile from Nevada. Both indiscriminately kill anyone within a certain radius of the "alleged" target.

But both sides of the aisle seem OK with this. I believe mostly because they don't care about brown skinned people in a country far away and it gives a sense of superiority and a sense we are actually doing something in the war on terror. A war that not long ago the one side of the aisle was arguing didn't exist.

So as you see in this thread getting agreement that any of the three I listed are a problem is not happening. We as a people can't agree that blowing people up on the whim of the CIA isn't right. We as a people can't agree that the NSA spying on, no just suspected wrong doers, but on EVERYONE is wrong. We can't even agree that the POTUS changing law, and MAKING law, with a stroke of a pen is a problem.

I am not sure what we the people can do against the establishment but I think we get what we pay (voted) for. And not just these last few elections.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article from the usually liberal friendly ACLU.

This extrajudicial killing program should make every American queasy. Based on largely secret legal standards and entirely secret evidence, our government has killed thousands of people. At least several hundred were killed far from any battlefield. Four of the dead are Americans. Astonishingly, President Obama's Justice Department has said the courts have no role in deciding whether the killing of U.S. citizens far from any battlefield is lawful.

The president, it seems, can be judge, jury, and executioner.

This is not the law. Our Constitution and international law strictly limit extrajudicial killing, for good reason. In areas of actual armed conflict, killing can be lawful because of battlefield requirements. Outside that context, an extrajudicial killing is legal only as a last resort, and only in response to a truly imminent threat. This makes sense: If a threat is imminent, there is no time for judicial review. In every other context, the Constitution requires the government to prove its case to a court before it kills. After all, allegations aren't evidence - the difference between the two is due process.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/death-without-due-process-0