Obama Drone Attacks Legal/Moral?...

[LuckyDan]

I admit readily that I've read no further than the first few words of the OP, so forgive me if this has been said but fuck the ACLU.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

He was a legit target, anyone dumb enough to be living with him is collateral damage. The ACLU can go pound sand up their collective asses.

 

[Dr Grump]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

He was a legit target, anyone dumb enough to be living with him is collateral damage. The ACLU can go pound sand up their collective asses.

I agree. He was a legit target. His family not so.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't care a damn about the Taliban...but Al Quaida and those that support them...feed them...hide them....are all fair game for annialation. I would rather see Ossamas children and grandchildren dead than have them walking and plotting in thier fathers footsteps. We do not have to make excuses for erradicating the real perpetrators of 9/11....EVER.

Most of the more than one million people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan had not given any material support to Al Qaeda. There are less than 100 Al Qaeda affiliated fighters left in all of Afghanistan, yet we send drone attacks that kill scores of civilians daily. The vast majority of the people who continue to fight against the U.S. occupation are, according to the U.S.'s own military and intelligence analysis, not ideologically driven or extremist terrorists, but rather people defending their land against a foreign army's occupation (as you would no doubt do if Chinese bombers and soldiers attacked your neighborhood).

Beyond that, we often bomb targets in the vicinity of homes and buildings that are completely unrelated and house completely unrelated, uninvolved, innocent people. It is a fallacy to argue that most of the innocent people we've murdered in these occupations were family members of or providing support to Al Qaeda.

Provide evidence a million people have been killed. And do NOT trot out the Lancet report.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

He was a legit target, anyone dumb enough to be living with him is collateral damage. The ACLU can go pound sand up their collective asses.

I agree. He was a legit target. His family not so.....

Ya we should just surrender cause damn they hide amongst civilians.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ya we should just surrender cause damn they hide amongst civilians.

That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....

.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..

...warped....

 

[LuckyDan]

Ya we should just surrender cause damn they hide amongst civilians.

That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....

.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..

...warped....

Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.

 

[Gatekeeper]

If cops were going after a bad guy in an apartment or house next to you and they dropped a missile blowing up that house (and yours) and killing loved one of yours, would you find that acceptable? So why should it be ok to kill innocents to go after bad guys, just because they are foreigners?

It's happened before: In Philadelphia,Pa

PHILADELPHIA, May 14 - Firefighters found the bodies of six people today in the charred rubble of a radical group's house that bold been leveled in a police assault that set fire to the surrounding; neighborhood and destroyed more than 50 homes

A state police helicopter this evening dropped a bomb on a house occupied by an armed group after a 24-hour siege involving gun battles.

Police Drop Bomb on Radicals' Home in Philadelphia WILLIAM K. STEVENS Special to The New York Times 14may85

 

[Dr Grump]

Ya we should just surrender cause damn they hide amongst civilians.

That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....

.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..

...warped....

Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.

So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?

 

[Neotrotsky]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

At times like these, it is best to go to the words of Our Most Great Leader, Papa Obama

Indeed as a candidate he said :

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a91VZUi1IN4]YouTube - Obama: We Are "Air Raiding Villages and Killing Civilians"[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....

.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..

...warped....

Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.

So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?

Yes asa matter of fact it is. You see dumb ass they could turn them in. They could organize and drive them out They could refuse to cooperate with them, instead they vote for them.

 

[skookerasbil]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

Fcukk the aclu anti-American assholes.........in fact, we need to develop in this country a congressional panel like they had in the 40's and 50's to monitor anti-American activities like the HCUA.

This is the one Obama policy that I publically applaud him on.........

Too bad for the civilians but they need to stand up and have some balls and eradicate the terror bad guys from their midst or suffer the consequences........its the price people in that area of the world are going to have to understand they are going to have to pay. Its quite that simple. You allow the terror bad guys to set up shop in your backyard? You're getting your ass droned!!!! It is now the 21st century and what you saw two summers ago in Lebanon will be the future of American Foreign Policy............just like the Israeli's did in Beirut. You support the terror bad guys? Your cities get bombed to hell................

The aclu are k00ks and their supporters are k00ks...........its not even debatable!!!!

We may well see the return of organizations like HCUA...........they identified numerous anti-American communist conspirators in many of the k00k left corners of American society in the 1950's.............they were dead on right!!! We need them again!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Detainees the government claims to be terrorists are afforded Constitutional rights when the U.S. government takes them into custody, whether this is practiced or not, it's what the Constitution explicitly demands. The Constitution does not only apply to citizens, and it's a retardmeme that that's the case.

To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner"). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").

The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are "persons." Once one makes that claim, then one is in Dred Scott territory. If foreigners are not "persons," then what are they: sub-persons? Non-persons? Untermenschen?

There are, of course, certain Constitutional rights that are clearly reserved only for citizens -- such as the right to vote or to hold elective office -- but when that is the case, the Constitution explicitly states that to be so ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States . . . ."). Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, in the very same clause, demonstrates the distinction between "citizens" (which only includes "Americans") and "persons" (which includes everyone), and proves that the former is merely a subset of the latter:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article II, Section 1 -- in defining eligibility to be President -- makes the same distinction:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

"Persons" and "citizens" have entirely different meanings in the Constitution. There are a handful of instances in which the Constitution applies only to American citizens. When that is the case, the Constitution explicitly uses the word "citizens." In all other instances, it simply restricts what the Government is permitted to do generally or uses the much broader term "persons" to describe who holds the rights it guarantees. That's the obvious point the Yick Wo Court made in 1886 in holding "these provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction," and it ought to prevent the most minimally honest individuals among us from claiming otherwise.

The standard rhetorical formulation being used -- "extending rights to foreign Terrorists which the Constitution reserves for U.S. citizens" -- suggests that Constitutional rights are for American citizens only. That is blatantly false, and anyone making that claim is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest.

Is your argument that they only have rights under the Constitution if they are captured and we are free to otherwise kill them? How can that be the desired outcome? How can only one class of Enemy Combatants, those captured, have rights as US citizens?

The ones that we killed are denied their rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!!

Do you see the rather large inconsistency in the Librul logic of granting Enemy Combatants rights as a citizen under the US Constitution?

 

[skookerasbil]

That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....

.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..

...warped....

Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.

So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?

Indeed it is s0n............in the 21st century, thats the way its going to be. Amen to that!!!

I support a policy that educates the people in these area's that if they choose to be limpwristers around the terror bad guys, they run the high risk of getting their face blown off. I do belive the American government should do what it can to warn civilians of sympathizing with terrorists. The implication is..............clearly..........that the people need to grow some balls and stand up to the radicals no matter the cost. THATS just the way it is...............


"So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?"


Is anybody else getting sick and tired of the wet handshake incoherent statments by the k00ks on the left ( see above statement) All these people know how to do is point out the obvious and offer zero solutions!!! Fcukking zero............so we should do nothing to protect ourselves because moderate Islam doesnt have the balls to stand up to the radicals??? Sorry.............fcukk that............doesnt cut it anymore. Not in the 21st century.

Its statements like the one above that brings rise to bumper stickers that say, "Liberalism is a mental disorder!!" Just a profound inability to connect the dots!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

OK..........so..........can we please hear one reasonable idea...........ONE FCUKKING REASONABLE IDEA.........that in the absence of drone use, how do we intend to kill the terror bad guys???


Drum roll please............................ ( I hope somebody has very strong wrists...........we're gonna be here awhile!!! )

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Imagine two terrorists walking down a street in Durkadurakstan, a Marine sniper kills one but the second is captured and brought to trial in an American criminal court with imaginary rights as a US Citizen.

When did he obtain these rights? Did he always have them? What about his friends who was sniped? What happened to his rights?

 

[Si modo]

That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....

.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..

...warped....

Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.

So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?

Bottom line, yup. Revolution - often a good idea.

 

[QUENTIN]

Is your argument that they only have rights under the Constitution if they are captured and we are free to otherwise kill them? How can that be the desired outcome? How can only one class of Enemy Combatants, those captured, have rights as US citizens?

The ones that we killed are denied their rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!!

Do you see the rather large inconsistency in the Librul logic of granting Enemy Combatants rights as a citizen under the US Constitution?

Yes. Assuming we're talking about them being in a foreign country on foreign soil, the Constitution and its protections only apply to them once we capture them. If they're currently engaged in active hostilities against us, we have every right to kill them. If they are not currently engaged in active hostilities against us, it is the right thing to do to take them in, but killing them would not be illegal.

The reason only people captured by the U.S. have Constitutional rights (again, read my post you quoted that quotes the Constitution and demonstrates it is unquestionably not reserved for U.S. citizens, as the Supreme Court has always found and as is plain in the text, so they're not getting rights as U.S. citizens, they're getting Constitutional rights) is because the Constitution only applies to people who fall under U.S. jurisdiction. An Afghani is subject to Afghan law, but if we place him under U.S. custody, he is now subject to American law as well. This is because the Constitution decrees it.

It has nothing to do with "liberal logic," it's the logic of the framers of the Constitution. Laws are not outcome based but principle based. Sometimes laws have negative outcomes, for instance a guilty person is found innocent, because the laws are designed to protect more significant, inalienable rights and principles of justice than any one court case could effect. And of course, again, as has been made quite clear and is frankly incontrovertible, the Constitution does not only apply to U.S. citizens so they're not being given "rights as a citizen under the US Constitution," but rather given the Constitutional rights the Constitution protects and assures for all persons.

Why anyone would have a problem with the Constitution granting rights to anyone under its custody and following the law on that remains to be seen. There are numerous laws against all forms of terrorism or support for terrorism that make it extremely easy to convict anyone actually involved in any way with terrorism to a life sentence in Supermax (from which no one has ever escaped). Between 9/11 and 2008, we convicted 195 people of terrorism charges (a 91% conviction rate) in federal court, they're now in prison and no longer pose a threat. Terrorists aren't X-Men, there's no reason we have to break the law or establish a needlessly complex new system just to try them. Terrorists are criminals and have been tried successfully as such for decades. Why would we even need to violate the Constitution and repudiate our justice system to stop them? It works just fine, and it also affords us the opportunity to prove that open democracy works and is preferable to radical Islam, it provides justice and keeps us secure, unlike radical lawlessness.

Imagine two terrorists walking down a street in Durkadurakstan, a Marine sniper kills one but the second is captured and brought to trial in an American criminal court with imaginary rights as a US Citizen.

When did he obtain these rights? Did he always have them? What about his friends who was sniped? What happened to his rights?

He wouldn't be given imaginary rights as a U.S. citizen, he'd be given Constitutional rights as someone in U.S. custody.

He obtained the rights when he was captured and detained by agents of the U.S. His friend never had those rights because he was never under U.S. jurisdiction. The rights are universal to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not all persons everywhere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is your argument that they only have rights under the Constitution if they are captured and we are free to otherwise kill them? How can that be the desired outcome? How can only one class of Enemy Combatants, those captured, have rights as US citizens?

The ones that we killed are denied their rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!!

Do you see the rather large inconsistency in the Librul logic of granting Enemy Combatants rights as a citizen under the US Constitution?

Yes. Assuming we're talking about them being in a foreign country on foreign soil, the Constitution and its protections only apply to them once we capture them. If they're currently engaged in active hostilities against us, we have every right to kill them. If they are not currently engaged in active hostilities against us, it is the right thing to do to take them in, but killing them would not be illegal.

The reason only people captured by the U.S. have Constitutional rights (again, read my post you quoted that quotes the Constitution and demonstrates it is unquestionably not reserved for U.S. citizens, as the Supreme Court has always found and as is plain in the text, so they're not getting rights as U.S. citizens, they're getting Constitutional rights) is because the Constitution only applies to people who fall under U.S. jurisdiction. An Afghani is subject to Afghan law, but if we place him under U.S. custody, he is now subject to American law as well. This is because the Constitution decrees it.

It has nothing to do with "liberal logic," it's the logic of the framers of the Constitution. Laws are not outcome based but principle based. Sometimes laws have negative outcomes, for instance a guilty person is found innocent, because the laws are designed to protect more significant, inalienable rights and principles of justice than any one court case could effect. And of course, again, as has been made quite clear and is frankly incontrovertible, the Constitution does not only apply to U.S. citizens so they're not being given "rights as a citizen under the US Constitution," but rather given the Constitutional rights the Constitution protects and assures for all persons.

Why anyone would have a problem with the Constitution granting rights to anyone under its custody and following the law on that remains to be seen. There are numerous laws against all forms of terrorism or support for terrorism that make it extremely easy to convict anyone actually involved in any way with terrorism to a life sentence in Supermax (from which no one has ever escaped). Between 9/11 and 2008, we convicted 195 people of terrorism charges (a 91% conviction rate) in federal court, they're now in prison and no longer pose a threat. Terrorists aren't X-Men, there's no reason we have to break the law or establish a needlessly complex new system just to try them. Terrorists are criminals and have been tried successfully as such for decades. Why would we even need to violate the Constitution and repudiate our justice system to stop them? It works just fine, and it also affords us the opportunity to prove that open democracy works and is preferable to radical Islam, it provides justice and keeps us secure, unlike radical lawlessness.

Imagine two terrorists walking down a street in Durkadurakstan, a Marine sniper kills one but the second is captured and brought to trial in an American criminal court with imaginary rights as a US Citizen.

When did he obtain these rights? Did he always have them? What about his friends who was sniped? What happened to his rights?

He wouldn't be given imaginary rights as a U.S. citizen, he'd be given Constitutional rights as someone in U.S. custody.

He obtained the rights when he was captured and detained by agents of the U.S. His friend never had those rights because he was never under U.S. jurisdiction. The rights are universal to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not all persons everywhere.

So, since we no longer have the concept of Enemy Combatant, don't we have to Mirandize the newly minted US Citizen?

 

[Mike458877]

Obama knows what he is doing. He has all of this under control and is finally doing things properly. We need not concern ourselves with these little issues and just work as hard as we can to pay taxes, fees and utilities.

Mike