President Obama defends "targeted killing" in Terrorism fight

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, no. If they are caught in the act of committing an act of war, they are entitled to get shot on sight. There was no "due process" for the South's soldiers in the Civil War, either. President Lincoln and the editorial boards of the nation's newspapers didn't worry about whether shooting the enemy forces would deprive them of Constitutionally guaranteed "due process." That term is not without meaning. But its meaning is limited to the judicial process. It has precious little application to war.

And, if they find him on a battlefield shooting at US troops they can blow his ass away. If he is in Yemen, as they believe, and making videos, they cannot. Why do you not see the difference?

Why do you assume there is a difference? Why do you not see that there is NO difference?

In conventional warfare, troops meet on a field of battle. Enemies shoot at each other. Lives are lost.

In this non conventional warfare directed against us, there are no soldiers needed to be arrayed against THEIR combatants. Instead, as we clearly saw on 9/11/2001, these illegal enemy combatants buy tickets for civilian passenger jet flights, hijack those flights, fly them into building and kill thousand of innocent civilians. What "battlefield" are we NOW talking about?

And Al-Alwaki does his mischief in preaching his version of hate AND IN TRAINING some of the mutants who then serve as human explosives, etc. That his version of "fighting" our civilians in this war they started doesn't come with a uniform, flag, insignias of rank, military command structure, clearly delineated fields of battle, etc., absolutely doesn't change the nature of what he's doing. JUST as we could have taken-out Goebbles for his Propaganda services on behalf of our enemy in WWII, so too we should be able to take out that bitch for his services to the Jihadist War underway against us by our present enemy.

There is a difference. One is war and us fighting to preserve our values, and the other is us being afraid and allowing the enemy to define us.

 

[Liability]

And, if they find him on a battlefield shooting at US troops they can blow his ass away. If he is in Yemen, as they believe, and making videos, they cannot. Why do you not see the difference?

Why do you assume there is a difference? Why do you not see that there is NO difference?

In conventional warfare, troops meet on a field of battle. Enemies shoot at each other. Lives are lost.

In this non conventional warfare directed against us, there are no soldiers needed to be arrayed against THEIR combatants. Instead, as we clearly saw on 9/11/2001, these illegal enemy combatants buy tickets for civilian passenger jet flights, hijack those flights, fly them into building and kill thousand of innocent civilians. What "battlefield" are we NOW talking about?

And Al-Alwaki does his mischief in preaching his version of hate AND IN TRAINING some of the mutants who then serve as human explosives, etc. That his version of "fighting" our civilians in this war they started doesn't come with a uniform, flag, insignias of rank, military command structure, clearly delineated fields of battle, etc., absolutely doesn't change the nature of what he's doing. JUST as we could have taken-out Goebbles for his Propaganda services on behalf of our enemy in WWII, so too we should be able to take out that bitch for his services to the Jihadist War underway against us by our present enemy.

There is a difference. One is war and us fighting to preserve our values, and the other is us being afraid and allowing the enemy to define us.

There is no difference. Both are war and fighting war. The hyperbole that we are somehow "permitting" those jihadist bastards "to define us" is just so much hot air. The words have no actual real world meaning.

It is perhaps the view of some folks that it would have been "wrong" to assassinate Adolf Hitler during WWII, or his Minister of Propaganda. But I don't believe most American subscribe to that view. I believe most Americans have long known that it would be much worse, much more morally indefensible, not to take Hitler out if we had the ability to do so once the war got underway.

Why would it be different for bin Laden? Why would it be different for one of his most effective propagandists -- a propagandist with high rank within al qaeda, by the way? If we would have gladly taken out Hitler or Goebbels, then it can't be the case that we are permitting al qaeda to define us if we now try to take out bin Pigfucker or Al-Awlacki.

 

[Father Time]

If you're so sure he's been training recruits try him for it then (although I've seen no evidence he works for Al Q). He's a U.S. citizen and he's entitled to rights. The idea that we get to ignore the constitution in times of war is pure crap.

 

[Father Time]

Forget this obvious violation of the constitution and focus on this

"Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president"

Does anyone here really think the president should get free reign to do whatever he wants?

 

[Liability]

If you're so sure he's been training recruits try him for it then. He's a U.S. citizen and he's entitled to rights. The idea that we get to ignore the constitution in times of war is pure crap.

To "try" him would require (among other things) arresting him. And arresting him would needlessly put the lives of worthwhile human beings at risk. Since, in addition to training our enemies, he is one of their commanding propagandists, it is much more practical and serviceable to just put him down like a fucking rabid dog.

I quote my friend yet again: "green light; red mist." Problem solved.

 

[Liability]

Forget this obvious violation of the constitution and focus on this

"Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president"

Does anyone here really think the president should get free reign to do whatever he wants?

Saying that the Court has no jurisdiction is not the same as a claim that the President has no constraints or should have no constraints. Your general ignorance is startling.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Hell, for all we know, Al-Awlaki could be a TV star in Yemen and simply be playing a terrorist on their version of "24" and those tapes that allegedly exist are only part of the program. Those are the kind of things that a trial are supposed to bring out. And this is the kind of thing that the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect us from: a potentially over-zealous government.

Immie

Yes Anwar is a good innocent Muslim American man, he is the Yemeni version of David Hasselhoff.

You're a real comedian, hell I like you....you can come over to my house and drink my malt liquor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad on the AUMF. I was thinking of something else.
The War Powers Act does limit the powers of the president,

Which clause of Article I Sec 8 gives Congress the power to restrict the Article II powers of the CinC?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Forget this obvious violation of the constitution and focus on this
"Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president"
Does anyone here really think the president should get free reign to do whatever he wants?

Depending on circumstances, it may not.
The SCotUS has original jurisdiction only in limited areas.
It has appellate jurisdiction as specified by Congress; Congress can eliminate appellate jurisdiction at will.
So, depesnding on what PotUS does and the specifics of the jurisdiction of the court, the court may have no say whatsoever.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hell, for all we know, Al-Awlaki could be a TV star in Yemen and simply be playing a terrorist on their version of "24" and those tapes that allegedly exist are only part of the program. Those are the kind of things that a trial are supposed to bring out. And this is the kind of thing that the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect us from: a potentially over-zealous government.

Immie

Yes Anwar is a good innocent Muslim American man, he is the Yemeni version of David Hasselhoff.

You're a real comedian, hell I like you....you can come over to my house and drink my malt liquor.

Hell yeah! Make sure you got Earthquake and Stacks!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My bad on the AUMF. I was thinking of something else.
The War Powers Act does limit the powers of the president,

Which clause of Article I Sec 8 gives Congress the power to restrict the Article II powers of the CinC?

Didn't I already point out that neither side wants the Act challenged in court?

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad on the AUMF. I was thinking of something else.
The War Powers Act does limit the powers of the president,

Which clause of Article I Sec 8 gives Congress the power to restrict the Article II powers of the CinC?

Didn't I already point out that neither side wants the Act challenged in court?

If -I- were the CinC, -I- would.

 

[logical4u]

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 President" should not have the "power" to make an assasination list with no checks and balances. The example you gave would be the perfect example: the FBI/CIA/NIS/etc gives the President a list they believe to be 'terrorists'. The President could review this list with a 'select few' (preferably all not under the President's control), and a list could be approved by this group (that could be held accountable, thus the different branches), in advance. There would no need for the President to call someone and say I have it on good authority 'Joe the plumber' is trying to take down this country', get him first.

 

[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 President" should not have the "power" to make an assasination list with no checks and balances. The example you gave would be the perfect example: the FBI/CIA/NIS/etc gives the President a list they believe to be 'terrorists'. The President could review this list with a 'select few' (preferably all not under the President's control), and a list could be approved by this group (that could be held accountable, thus the different branches), in advance. There would no need for the President to call someone and say I have it on good authority 'Joe the plumber' is trying to take down this country', get him first.

I said nothing about having NO checks or balances. In fact, elsewhere I have suggested that there should be some layers to the determination. IT is not clear why the Judicial Branch would be part of that, however.

Let me take a slightly different angle on this. When the 9/11 al qaeda hijackers had already taken out the Twin Towers and the order was given to fire on the jet that eventually crashed in PA, does anybody believe that the order to fire on that jetliner was somehow unlawful?

 

[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!"

"The President" should not have the "power" to make an assasination list with no checks and balances. The example you gave would be the perfect example: the FBI/CIA/NIS/etc gives the President a list they believe to be 'terrorists'. The President could review this list with a 'select few' (preferably all not under the President's control), and a list could be approved by this group (that could be held accountable, thus the different branches), in advance. There would no need for the President to call someone and say I have it on good authority 'Joe the plumber' is trying to take down this country', get him first.

I said nothing about having NO checks or balances. In fact, elsewhere I have suggested that there should be some layers to the determination. IT is not clear why the Judicial Branch would be part of that, however.

Let me take a slightly different angle on this. When the 9/11 al qaeda hijackers had already taken out the Twin Towers and the order was given to fire on the jet that eventually crashed in PA, does anybody believe that the order to fire on that jetliner was somehow unlawful?

Again you are confusing legal issues.

The order to fire on that airliner, or any other airliner that was escorted that day, if it could not be diverted, was both legal and justifiable. It was both because it offered the people aboard the airline an opportunity to obey an order to comply with law enforcement, and because it would have prevented the possible loss of other lives. This is no different than police ordering a person holding a weapon to drop it, and shooting them if they threaten to harm anyone else.

Assassinating someone who is not actively an imminent danger to others is the same as police shooting a guy who is walking down the street because he might have a weapon in his car. While it is certainly possible that the guy the police shot will, in the future, use that weapon to kill someone, he was not a threat at the time he was shot. That makes the action of the police in that case both illegal and unjustifiable, even if they have concrete proof that he is planning to kill his wife.

I can certainly follow your rationalization, and I would, as I have said before, have no problem if someone killed al-Awlaki, and might even do it myself if given the chance, the government is supposed to be better than that. There is a difference between something being justified and being able to rationalize it.

 

[Liability]

"The President" should not have the "power" to make an assasination list with no checks and balances. The example you gave would be the perfect example: the FBI/CIA/NIS/etc gives the President a list they believe to be 'terrorists'. The President could review this list with a 'select few' (preferably all not under the President's control), and a list could be approved by this group (that could be held accountable, thus the different branches), in advance. There would no need for the President to call someone and say I have it on good authority 'Joe the plumber' is trying to take down this country', get him first.

I said nothing about having NO checks or balances. In fact, elsewhere I have suggested that there should be some layers to the determination. IT is not clear why the Judicial Branch would be part of that, however.

Let me take a slightly different angle on this. When the 9/11 al qaeda hijackers had already taken out the Twin Towers and the order was given to fire on the jet that eventually crashed in PA, does anybody believe that the order to fire on that jetliner was somehow unlawful?

Again you are confusing legal issues.

The order to fire on that airliner, or any other airliner that was escorted that day, if it could not be diverted, was both legal and justifiable. It was both because it offered the people aboard the airline an opportunity to obey an order to comply with law enforcement, and because it would have prevented the possible loss of other lives. This is no different than police ordering a person holding a weapon to drop it, and shooting them if they threaten to harm anyone else.

Assassinating someone who is not actively an imminent danger to others is the same as police shooting a guy who is walking down the street because he might have a weapon in his car. While it is certainly possible that the guy the police shot will, in the future, use that weapon to kill someone, he was not a threat at the time he was shot. That makes the action of the police in that case both illegal and unjustifiable, even if they have concrete proof that he is planning to kill his wife.

I can certainly follow your rationalization, and I would, as I have said before, have no problem if someone killed al-Awlaki, and might even do it myself if given the chance, the government is supposed to be better than that. There is a difference between something being justified and being able to rationalize it.

No no. The confusion remains entirely yours. To the extent that the jetliner had been hijacked, the order to shoot it down contemplated the killing of entirely innocent U.S. citizens. And the order required no intervention or authorization from the Judicial Branch nor from anybody, frankly, in the Legislative Branch.

Now, the Presidential authorization to take-out al-Awlaki, also does not depend on the approval of any other Branch. The imminence of the threat that fucker poses is already crystal clear. He's had the shoe bomber Reid adhere to his preachings and that asshole Major Nidal Hasan also adhere to his preachings. Moreover, the fucker al-Awlaki is not subject to our lawful process (that is, we can't merely wander over to Yemen and arrest his maggoty ass). So, it's quite unclear what we would be waiting for before deciding to take him out like a rabid dog. The longer we wait, the greater the prospect that he will similarly educate some other future militant Islamic Jihadist.

Killing him -- immediately -- is perfectly justified. We are at war. He is not just one of the enemy, but he is one of their commanders and he poses a relentless imminent threat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Killing him -- immediately -- is perfectly justified. We are at war. He is not just one of the enemy, but he is one of their commanders and he poses a relentless imminent threat.

This -is- the salient point.
Actions taken in the context in war are not held to the same moral, ethical or legal standard as actions taken in the context of law enforcement.

 

[logical4u]

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 President" should not have the "power" to make an assasination list with no checks and balances. The example you gave would be the perfect example: the FBI/CIA/NIS/etc gives the President a list they believe to be 'terrorists'. The President could review this list with a 'select few' (preferably all not under the President's control), and a list could be approved by this group (that could be held accountable, thus the different branches), in advance. There would no need for the President to call someone and say I have it on good authority 'Joe the plumber' is trying to take down this country', get him first.

I said nothing about having NO checks or balances. In fact, elsewhere I have suggested that there should be some layers to the determination. IT is not clear why the Judicial Branch would be part of that, however.

Let me take a slightly different angle on this. When the 9/11 al qaeda hijackers had already taken out the Twin Towers and the order was given to fire on the jet that eventually crashed in PA, does anybody believe that the order to fire on that jetliner was somehow unlawful?

If they are in control and using it to target USA interests, you have made your point, very, very well.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

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!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki's father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.

Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans. He also has been linked to last year's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas. He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans.

Administration officials have confirmed to The Associated Press that al-Awlaki is on a capture or kill list, although the Obama administration declined to confirm or deny it in court proceedings.

The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him. The suit also tried to force the government to disclose standards for determining whether U.S. citizens like his son, born in New Mexico, can be targeted for death.

Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president as he makes military decisions to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

* * * *

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

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

Just Obambi doing his tap dance minstrel show.

He's gone further to the right on foreign policy than George Bush.

The faster democrats get rid of the minstrel the better off they'll be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No no. The confusion remains entirely yours. To the extent that the jetliner had been hijacked, the order to shoot it down contemplated the killing of entirely innocent U.S. citizens. And the order required no intervention or authorization from the Judicial Branch nor from anybody, frankly, in the Legislative Branch.

Now, the Presidential authorization to take-out al-Awlaki, also does not depend on the approval of any other Branch. The imminence of the threat that fucker poses is already crystal clear. He's had the shoe bomber Reid adhere to his preachings and that asshole Major Nidal Hasan also adhere to his preachings. Moreover, the fucker al-Awlaki is not subject to our lawful process (that is, we can't merely wander over to Yemen and arrest his maggoty ass). So, it's quite unclear what we would be waiting for before deciding to take him out like a rabid dog. The longer we wait, the greater the prospect that he will similarly educate some other future militant Islamic Jihadist.

Killing him -- immediately -- is perfectly justified. We are at war. He is not just one of the enemy, but he is one of their commanders and he poses a relentless imminent threat.

I am not the one that is confused, and you know it. You keep ignoring my arguments about why you are wrong and keep repeating the ones about why you are right. I have addressed each of your points repeatedly, and you just keep repeating them without addressing mine. That alone tells me you know you are loosing the debate on points. If the threat he poses is so great why don't we just nuke Yemen into a sea of glass? That would certainly eliminate him as a threat, and have the added benefit of killing off a lot of potential terrorists.