President Obama defends "targeted killing" in Terrorism fight

[logical4u]

Not only did the Obama Administration DEFEND the idea of a targeted killing of a terrorist cleric who has never been "tried" for anything, but --

in the first big round of Judicial review of that policy, the Obama Administration just WON in Court!



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...P-US-Cleric-Lawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

The police have to get a warrant. The President should need one, also.

That would be an interesting "warrant." I wonder what you'd call it?

Would it be a Death Warrant? Or would it be an Execution Warrant?

It would be interesting to then have the Execution Warrant Executed, entailing the Execution of the person named on the warrant. Would it be referred to the Department of Redundancy Department?

The PURPOSE of a Warrant, by the way, is not to get a Judge to permit something final. It is to get a judge to authorize LAW ENFORCEMENT efforts that might otherwise transgress the 4th amendment. This allows for Judicial Review after the Execution of the Search Warrant, for example. But, by contrast, after an Execution Warrant, there aren't going to be any judicial proceedings because when the Execution Warrant is Executed, the person named will be kind of dead.

And the whole notion is kind of silly anyway. What possible purpose is served by having the Judicial Branch implicated in such a unilateral and final determination? You don't trust the person charged under the Constitution with the responsibility of being the Commander in Chief. But if you can get some mere judge to agree with the President, then everything will be just ducky?

I tell you what. If the President gets word that Osama bin Pigfucker is within reach of one of our snipers or drones (for a brief opening in the window of time), I personally don't WANT him (or her) to ask a Judge for "mother may I?" permission to sanction Osama.

I also agree with LibocalypseNow's expression of serious concern (post 2 in this thread). This whole thing is kinda sordid and potentially ugly ESPECIALLY if the person being "sanctioned" is a U.S. Citizen. But even so, it is not an area entrusted to the Judicial Branch.

I agree. Maybe it could be put to a group of military judges, the Speaker of the house & the senate majority leader. Allowing the President to personally declare an assasination list WILL give us a dictator. It will not start out like that, but it will end up as a tool for removing political opposition. The President has the power to declare nuclear war (unofficially with a button). That is a large responsibility that would take a whole lot of explaining if he decided to use it. Bumping people off that disagree with him, all he needs to say is he "felt" the were a threat to national security, and there would be no lawful consequences.

I would like to revisit this option, AFTER, our borders are secured. Until then, I do not believe anyone in DC is concerned with national security.

 

[Liability]

Let's say, simply for the sake of this discussion, that there exists some U.S. citizen (maybe even natural born) who becomes enamored of the religion of Islam. Let's call him Jihad Jimmy.

He studies Islam. He goes in rather deeply. He learns the language. Studies it. Studies under Imams. Gets involved with some of the more whacked out jihadist extremists. He becomes a jihadist himself. He literally joins up with al qaeda. He trains with them. He joins a "cell" here in the United States. (As we learned from what happened in Tonawanda, NY, outside of Buffalo, they do exist.) He recruits others. He plots and plans and conspires to perform jihad. Suicide bombing isn't enough for him. He wants the full martyrdom glory (all for Allah, of course).

So his planned spectacular is to poison a major metropolis' water supply. But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. But our intel uncovers that he is mere days (maybe hours?) away from pulling off his "spectacular."

We further derive information that he will be at one of the main reservoirs supplying New York City with its water. The poison he has acquired will suffice to kill hundreds of thousands of those who drink from that water supply, maybe even millions.

Should the President order the FBI to see if, maybe, they can find him and arrest him? Or -- given the risk that his action is so dangerously imminent -- should the President authorize his immediate assassination, upon sight, so that, hopefully, he can be stopped and his "supplies" retrieved BEFORE he or others can use them to kill our civilians?

I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed. Should we nevertheless say, "This is a criminal law matter! We can't "sanction" old Jihad Jihad. We must arrest him and provide him with all manner of due process!"

 

[The T]

The more I think about this, the more disturbed I become by it.

We now have a precedence set that the President of the United States of America can assasinate a citizen w/o due process.

Is it ok b/c the guys an asshole that connected to terrorism?

Granted, I think this guy is guilty and needs to be fertilizer, but it is simply wrong to kill assasinate a citizen.

Do we start hunting down non-citizens? How about citizness that might be problems, b/c they fit some profile.

No, this is wrong, and is against the Constitution for a reason.

America is the "Beakon of Light" that so many followed to our shores to get away from crap like this.

Does it matter to you that this guy has gone literally to the dark side in mind, spirit, and body? The guy doesn't reside here any longer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am indeed, thanks. Are you seriously denying this man is a terrorist? I support it in this instance.

I am seriously denying that this man was given due process before being put on a kill list. In case you missed it, that is unconstitutional.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If someone wants to try that demon in a MILITARY court, fine. So you're 1 of those wacko pussies who wants U.S. civilian rights for terrorists?

Not cool.

No, I am one of those wackos that want US civilian rights for US citizens, which this guy is.

 

[The T]

Let's say, simply for the sake of this discussion, that there exists some U.S. citizen (maybe even natural born) who becomes enamored of the religion of Islam. Let's call him Jihad Jimmy.

He studies Islam. He goes in rather deeply. He learns the language. Studies it. Studies under Imams. Gets involved with some of the more whacked out jihadist extremists. He becomes a jihadist himself. He literally joins up with al qaeda. He trains with them. He joins a "cell" here in the United States. (As we learned from what happened in Tonawanda, NY, outside of Buffalo, they do exist.) He recruits others. He plots and plans and conspires to perform jihad. Suicide bombing isn't enough for him. He wants the full martyrdom glory (all for Allah, of course).

So his planned spectacular is to poison a major metropolis' water supply. But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. But our intel uncovers that he is mere days (maybe hours?) away from pulling off his "spectacular."

We further derive information that he will be at one of the main reservoirs supplying New York City with its water. The poison he has acquired will suffice to kill hundreds of thousands of those who drink from that water supply, maybe even millions.

Should the President order the FBI to see if, maybe, they can find him and arrest him? Or -- given the risk that his action is so dangerously imminent -- should the President authorize his immediate assassination, upon sight, so that, hopefully, he can be stopped and his "supplies" retrieved BEFORE he or others can use them to kill our civilians?

I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed. Should we nevertheless say, "This is a criminal law matter! We can't "sanction" old Jihad Jihad. We must arrest him and provide him with all manner of due process!"

It's a very well laid out argument. The argument that you lay out would paint your character as declaring WAR, or joining a proclaimed WAR on us.

He therefore becomes a combatant, regardless, and should be treated as such instead of a common criminal caught in a bank robbery, as this present regime confers even on combatnats that aren't citizens.

And thus in my mind would br treated as such...as a combatant. And I think an added penalty would be one of treason as a citizen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's say, simply for the sake of this discussion, that there exists some U.S. citizen (maybe even natural born) who becomes enamored of the religion of Islam. Let's call him Jihad Jimmy.

He studies Islam. He goes in rather deeply. He learns the language. Studies it. Studies under Imams. Gets involved with some of the more whacked out jihadist extremists. He becomes a jihadist himself. He literally joins up with al qaeda. He trains with them. He joins a "cell" here in the United States. (As we learned from what happened in Tonawanda, NY, outside of Buffalo, they do exist.) He recruits others. He plots and plans and conspires to perform jihad. Suicide bombing isn't enough for him. He wants the full martyrdom glory (all for Allah, of course).

So his planned spectacular is to poison a major metropolis' water supply. But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. But our intel uncovers that he is mere days (maybe hours?) away from pulling off his "spectacular."

We further derive information that he will be at one of the main reservoirs supplying New York City with its water. The poison he has acquired will suffice to kill hundreds of thousands of those who drink from that water supply, maybe even millions.

Should the President order the FBI to see if, maybe, they can find him and arrest him? Or -- given the risk that his action is so dangerously imminent -- should the President authorize his immediate assassination, upon sight, so that, hopefully, he can be stopped and his "supplies" retrieved BEFORE he or others can use them to kill our civilians?

I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed. Should we nevertheless say, "This is a criminal law matter! We can't "sanction" old Jihad Jihad. We must arrest him and provide him with all manner of due process!"

Send the FBI to arrest him. How is killing him unilaterally going to prevent his co conspirators from carrying out the hypothetical attack on the reservoir? Are they magically going to disappear because we murder someone? I do not want the government arbitrarily killing or torturing people.

By the way, if the FBI does go out to arrest him, and perceives that the guy is an imminent danger to themselves or others deadly force is legal. On the other hand, if they just go out to kill him, it isn't.

 

[Liability]

Let's say, simply for the sake of this discussion, that there exists some U.S. citizen (maybe even natural born) who becomes enamored of the religion of Islam. Let's call him Jihad Jimmy.

He studies Islam. He goes in rather deeply. He learns the language. Studies it. Studies under Imams. Gets involved with some of the more whacked out jihadist extremists. He becomes a jihadist himself. He literally joins up with al qaeda. He trains with them. He joins a "cell" here in the United States. (As we learned from what happened in Tonawanda, NY, outside of Buffalo, they do exist.) He recruits others. He plots and plans and conspires to perform jihad. Suicide bombing isn't enough for him. He wants the full martyrdom glory (all for Allah, of course).

So his planned spectacular is to poison a major metropolis' water supply. But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. But our intel uncovers that he is mere days (maybe hours?) away from pulling off his "spectacular."

We further derive information that he will be at one of the main reservoirs supplying New York City with its water. The poison he has acquired will suffice to kill hundreds of thousands of those who drink from that water supply, maybe even millions.

Should the President order the FBI to see if, maybe, they can find him and arrest him? Or -- given the risk that his action is so dangerously imminent -- should the President authorize his immediate assassination, upon sight, so that, hopefully, he can be stopped and his "supplies" retrieved BEFORE he or others can use them to kill our civilians?

I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed. Should we nevertheless say, "This is a criminal law matter! We can't "sanction" old Jihad Jihad. We must arrest him and provide him with all manner of due process!"

Send the FBI to arrest him. How is killing him unilaterally going to prevent his co conspirators from carrying out the hypothetical attack on the reservoir? Are they magically going to disappear because we murder someone? I do not want the government arbitrarily killing or torturing people.

By the way, if the FBI does go out to arrest him, and perceives that the guy is an imminent danger to themselves or others deadly force is legal. On the other hand, if they just go out to kill him, it isn't.

No. You overlooked a couple of the key provisions of my little hypothetical. Let me repeat a couple of them and highlight them :

But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. * * * * I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed.

And what I'm saying is, the time we take trying to catch him and cuff him could be the time he needs to get the poison into the water supply (or set off the nuke, etc., etc., etc.).

 

[Liability]

Speaking of which:

Should we capture Osama alive? Or should we do as my cop-friend suggested about another scumbag: "Green light; red mist."

 

[Kalam]

Speaking of which:

Should we capture Osama alive? Or should we do as my cop-friend suggested about another scumbag: "Green light; red mist."

I'm pretty sure he's not a US citizen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's say, simply for the sake of this discussion, that there exists some U.S. citizen (maybe even natural born) who becomes enamored of the religion of Islam. Let's call him Jihad Jimmy.

He studies Islam. He goes in rather deeply. He learns the language. Studies it. Studies under Imams. Gets involved with some of the more whacked out jihadist extremists. He becomes a jihadist himself. He literally joins up with al qaeda. He trains with them. He joins a "cell" here in the United States. (As we learned from what happened in Tonawanda, NY, outside of Buffalo, they do exist.) He recruits others. He plots and plans and conspires to perform jihad. Suicide bombing isn't enough for him. He wants the full martyrdom glory (all for Allah, of course).

So his planned spectacular is to poison a major metropolis' water supply. But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. But our intel uncovers that he is mere days (maybe hours?) away from pulling off his "spectacular."

We further derive information that he will be at one of the main reservoirs supplying New York City with its water. The poison he has acquired will suffice to kill hundreds of thousands of those who drink from that water supply, maybe even millions.

Should the President order the FBI to see if, maybe, they can find him and arrest him? Or -- given the risk that his action is so dangerously imminent -- should the President authorize his immediate assassination, upon sight, so that, hopefully, he can be stopped and his "supplies" retrieved BEFORE he or others can use them to kill our civilians?

I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed. Should we nevertheless say, "This is a criminal law matter! We can't "sanction" old Jihad Jihad. We must arrest him and provide him with all manner of due process!"

Send the FBI to arrest him. How is killing him unilaterally going to prevent his co conspirators from carrying out the hypothetical attack on the reservoir? Are they magically going to disappear because we murder someone? I do not want the government arbitrarily killing or torturing people.

By the way, if the FBI does go out to arrest him, and perceives that the guy is an imminent danger to themselves or others deadly force is legal. On the other hand, if they just go out to kill him, it isn't.

No. You overlooked a couple of the key provisions of my little hypothetical. Let me repeat a couple of them and highlight them :

But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. * * * * I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed.

And what I'm saying is, the time we take trying to catch him and cuff him could be the time he needs to get the poison into the water supply (or set off the nuke, etc., etc., etc.).

There is a major flaw in your logic. If we can't find him to arrest him we can't find him to shoot him either. If, on the other hand, we can find him to shoot him we can find him to arrest him.

 

[Liability]

Speaking of which:

Should we capture Osama alive? Or should we do as my cop-friend suggested about another scumbag: "Green light; red mist."

I'm pretty sure he's not a US citizen.

That's what I thought.

The huge distinction we are drawing is whether or not killing JUST a U.S. citizen for waging war (or trying to) against all of the rest of us is "wrong." Killing some other person isn't morally offensive in the slightest. After all, killing an enemy combatant in war is perfectly justifiable -- unless that enemy combatant was born in the territorial limits of the United States. In the latter case, it stops being morally justifiable and crosses the line into something "wrong."

Are you kidding me, folks? The life and the "rights" of an enemy combatant attempting to wage war on us is a thing of precious value based on his citizenship?

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

But do we all subscribe to this notion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Speaking of which:

Should we capture Osama alive? Or should we do as my cop-friend suggested about another scumbag: "Green light; red mist."

I'm pretty sure he's not a US citizen.

That's what I thought.

The huge distinction we are drawing is whether or not killing JUST a U.S. citizen for waging war (or trying to) against all of the rest of us is "wrong." Killing some other person isn't morally offensive in the slightest. After all, killing an enemy combatant in war is perfectly justifiable -- unless that enemy combatant was born in the territorial limits of the United States. In the latter case, it stops being morally justifiable and crosses the line into something "wrong."

Are you kidding me, folks? The life and the "rights" of an enemy combatant attempting to wage war on us is a thing of precious value based on his citizenship?

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

But do we all subscribe to this notion?

If the guy is on a battlefield and he gets shot, tough shit. If, on the other hand, he is sitting in a house eating supper, that is murder.

 

[The T]

I'm pretty sure he's not a US citizen.

That's what I thought.

The huge distinction we are drawing is whether or not killing JUST a U.S. citizen for waging war (or trying to) against all of the rest of us is "wrong." Killing some other person isn't morally offensive in the slightest. After all, killing an enemy combatant in war is perfectly justifiable -- unless that enemy combatant was born in the territorial limits of the United States. In the latter case, it stops being morally justifiable and crosses the line into something "wrong."

Are you kidding me, folks? The life and the "rights" of an enemy combatant attempting to wage war on us is a thing of precious value based on his citizenship?

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

But do we all subscribe to this notion?

If the guy is on a battlefield and he gets shot, tough shit. If, on the other hand, he is sitting in a house eating supper, that is murder.

Then if he's eating supper? He's caught and put up before a military tribunal for waging war...and if found guilty by that tribunal? Justice is carried out.

No?

 

[Liability]

I'm pretty sure he's not a US citizen.

That's what I thought.

The huge distinction we are drawing is whether or not killing JUST a U.S. citizen for waging war (or trying to) against all of the rest of us is "wrong." Killing some other person isn't morally offensive in the slightest. After all, killing an enemy combatant in war is perfectly justifiable -- unless that enemy combatant was born in the territorial limits of the United States. In the latter case, it stops being morally justifiable and crosses the line into something "wrong."

Are you kidding me, folks? The life and the "rights" of an enemy combatant attempting to wage war on us is a thing of precious value based on his citizenship?

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

But do we all subscribe to this notion?

If the guy is on a battlefield and he gets shot, tough shit. If, on the other hand, he is sitting in a house eating supper, that is murder.

If Osama is on a battlefield (what part of the world is no longer a battlefield?) he is obviously gonna get shot.

But if he's caught in his three bedroom cave in the Mountains of Southern Jihadistan, eating his camel jerky for supper, then we can't just take his ass out?

Why not?

 

[kyzr]

An enemy combatant is dead meat.

What's the problem?

 

[The T]

An enemy combatant is dead meat.

What's the problem?

That's usually the idea. No Quarter.

 

[Kalam]

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

I don't have any ilk to speak of in this discussion. I simply mentioned that obvious fact because someone was going to point it out sooner or later.

 

[Liability]

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

I don't have any ilk to speak of in this discussion. I simply mentioned that obvious fact because someone was going to point it out sooner or later.

Oh don't kid yourself. (You don't fool any of us.)

You most certainly do have ilk.

And, you spent a few seconds pointing something out that was never in question in the first place. Good job!

 

[Kalam]

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

I don't have any ilk to speak of in this discussion. I simply mentioned that obvious fact because someone was going to point it out sooner or later.

Oh don't kid yourself. (You don't fool any of us.)

You most certainly do have ilk.

Really? Who else believes that the US shouldn't be involved in the affairs of the Muslim world at all, much less deciding whether to capture or kill some estranged pulpiter for being a big meanie and talking bad about them?

Rest assured, I don't care enough about this discussion or its participants to put any effort into trying to "fool" you, nor would I stand to gain anything from doing so.

And, you spent a few seconds pointing something out that was never in question in the first place. Good job!

You seemed unaware of that little tidbit. I assumed that's why you attempted to make such a silly comparison.

 

[The T]

I don't have any ilk to speak of in this discussion. I simply mentioned that obvious fact because someone was going to point it out sooner or later.

Oh don't kid yourself. (You don't fool any of us.)

You most certainly do have ilk.

Really? Who else believes that the US shouldn't be involved in the affairs of the Muslim world at all, much less deciding whether to capture or kill some estranged pulpiter for being a big meanie and talking bad about them?

Rest assured, I don't care enough about this discussion or its participants to put any effort into trying to "fool" you, nor would I stand to gain anything from doing so.

And, you spent a few seconds pointing something out that was never in question in the first place. Good job!

You seemed unaware of that little tidbit. I assumed that's why you attempted to make such a silly comparison.

Then the Muslim world may cease imposing their will on others...through their proclaimed Jhihad on the Infidel?

Sharia Law?