Well I guess Killing Americans with due process is OK

[kwc57]

Well I guess Killing Americans with due process is OK

We do it all the time.

We call it the death penalty.

I see the view up your ass hasn't changed.

 

[g5000]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

From your own link:

According to news accounts, the targeted killing program has expanded to include “signature strikes” in which the government does not know the identity of individuals, but targets them based on “patterns” of behavior that have never been made public.

A clear admission by the ACLU that the US government did not know a 16 year old US citizen was in the target group in an overseas military operating theater.

 

[nodoginnafight]

He was not the target of the strike. No matter how many time you claim he was.

My proof is that he was killed, what is your proof that he was not targeted?

It is upon the claimant to prove their claim, not the skeptic to prove the negative.

Nice try.

Prove the boy was targeted for death by the US government, please.

Thank you.

Ok, well this link says he was on a "kill list"

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

 

[g5000]

My proof is that he was killed, what is your proof that he was not targeted?

It is upon the claimant to prove their claim, not the skeptic to prove the negative.

Nice try.

Prove the boy was targeted for death by the US government, please.

Thank you.

Ok, well this link says he was on a "kill list"

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

Jesus. Read your own link, dumbass. His FATHER was on the kill list. Did all the Muslim names get you confused?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

From your own link:

According to news accounts, the targeted killing program has expanded to include “signature strikes” in which the government does not know the identity of individuals, but targets them based on “patterns” of behavior that have never been made public.

A clear admission by the ACLU that the US government did not know a 16 year old US citizen was in the target group in an overseas military operating theater.

Good point. So what behavior patterns got him on the "kill list"?

I just think there are a lot of questions here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

From your own link:

According to news accounts, the targeted killing program has expanded to include “signature strikes” in which the government does not know the identity of individuals, but targets them based on “patterns” of behavior that have never been made public.

A clear admission by the ACLU that the US government did not know a 16 year old US citizen was in the target group in an overseas military operating theater.

"The killings were part of a broader program of “targeted killing” by the United States outside the context of armed conflict. The program is based on vague legal standards, a closed executive decision-making process, and evidence never presented to the courts, even after the killing."

Pretty flimsy stuff, but this is Obama so it's OK

 

[Freewill]

So the 16 yr old boy from Denver waged war on the US?

Are you simple or is it just a bad day?

Which 16 year old boy was targeted again?

Up and to this post no one made that claim.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is upon the claimant to prove their claim, not the skeptic to prove the negative.

Nice try.

Prove the boy was targeted for death by the US government, please.

Thank you.

Ok, well this link says he was on a "kill list"

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

Jesus. Read your own link, dumbass. His FATHER was on the kill list. Did all the Muslim names get you confused?

It's not "my link" it was linked with the original post.
But yes, the names did confuse me. I apologize profusely for my grievous error.
Maybe if you call me a few more names, it'll clear things right up.

 

[Freewill]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

From your own link:

According to news accounts, the targeted killing program has expanded to include “signature strikes” in which the government does not know the identity of individuals, but targets them based on “patterns” of behavior that have never been made public.

A clear admission by the ACLU that the US government did not know a 16 year old US citizen was in the target group in an overseas military operating theater.

Includes means, includes. Which obviously means there is another method of targeting. You need to read up on how drones are targeting. And if we are killing people on "patterns" I have to ask, what the f..k is wrong with us?

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh I see what you are doing, you are believing what the administration fed you and are saying that the 16 year old boy and his cousins were not intentionally murdered it was manslaughter. Ok we'll go with that.

I've called you out for claiming that he was targeted every time I see you do it. I've pointed out to you numerous times that the President is authorized to conduct the campaign against al Qaeda as he sees fit.

Guns/missiles/arrows usually hit their target. I guess what you are saying is that you believe what the administration tells you and it makes some sort of difference to the 16 year old boy that he wasn't the target. Plus apparently your argument is that all brown skinned people are terrorist thus open for attack.

All I really said was the 16 year old boy was not targeted. Everything else apparently came from the voices inside your head (esp. that brown skinned crapola).

 

[g5000]

The United States had the permission of the Yemeni government to conduct these drone strikes.

Anwar Al-Aulaqi was the only US citizen of the three who were killed who was on a "kill list". He is the only one who was specifically targeted for death by name.

Al-Aulaqi was killed by a drone, since he would not have the courtesy of hanging out on US soil so he could be arrested. He was actively plotting against the US, and was therefore a terrorist.

He was killed by a drone. Unbeknownst to the US, one of the other three people in Al-Aulaqi's vehicle at the time he was taken out, Samir Khan, was also a US citizen.

Khan was a publisher of an Al Qaeda magazine. I do not weep for him.

 

[Freewill]

Ok, well this link says he was on a "kill list"

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

Jesus. Read your own link, dumbass. His FATHER was on the kill list. Did all the Muslim names get you confused?

It's not "my link" it was linked with the original post.
But yes, the names did confuse me. I apologize profusely for my grievous error.
Maybe if you call me a few more names, it'll clear things right up.

don't feel bad, the list is secret and the Obama administration is not being free with the information of whom is on the list. They say he wasn't but his death indicates otherwise. Or else the system is flawed and he was killed by accident.

 

[g5000]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

From your own link:

According to news accounts, the targeted killing program has expanded to include “signature strikes” in which the government does not know the identity of individuals, but targets them based on “patterns” of behavior that have never been made public.

A clear admission by the ACLU that the US government did not know a 16 year old US citizen was in the target group in an overseas military operating theater.

Includes means, includes. Which obviously means there is another method of targeting. You need to read up on how drones are targeting. And if we are killing people on "patterns" I have to ask, what the f..k is wrong with us?

The boy was not targeted for death by name by our government, period.

He was killed in a drone strike while part of a group of terrorists. Not exactly an innocent bystander.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Jesus. Read your own link, dumbass. His FATHER was on the kill list. Did all the Muslim names get you confused?

It's not "my link" it was linked with the original post.
But yes, the names did confuse me. I apologize profusely for my grievous error.
Maybe if you call me a few more names, it'll clear things right up.

don't feel bad, the list is secret and the Obama administration is not being free with the information of whom is on the list. They say he wasn't but his death indicates otherwise. Or else the system is flawed and he was killed by accident.

Point being - no one really knows whether he was targeted or not.
Unless they claim to be privy to the secret lists .....

 

[g5000]

Point being - no one really knows whether he was targeted or not.

Point being - those claiming he was are speaking out of their asses. There is not a shred of evidence to support that claim. Not even the ACLU makes that claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

Then behave.

Really . . . don't be where the LEO can't reach you, engage in acts that aid and abet the terrorists, and think you are not reachable.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Point being - no one really knows whether he was targeted or not.

Point being - those claiming he was are speaking out of their asses. There is not a shred of evidence to support that claim. Not even the ACLU makes that claim.

There's not a whole hell of a lot of evidence either way.
To say "he definitely was not" is just as much fantasy as saying "he definitely was"

 

[g5000]

You know, if a horde of terrorists were on their way to attack an overseas US base, and our drones took them out, and one of them happened to be a 16 year old boy who was an American citizen, are we supposed to somehow NOT kill him while stopping the attack? Would people really be so stupid as to claim his rights were violated?

If you can see the stupidity of that kind of thinking, it should not take much effort to realize we cannot afford to wait until an attack is underway. If we can prevent an attack from even getting off the launch pad, then we should do so. And sometimes that means a pre-emptive strike.

If you are hanging out with terrorists in Yemen, and you get killed, that is not the fault of the US government, and your rights are not being violated.

It isn't like this kid was killed while sightseeing at the top of the World Trade Center.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It isn't like this kid was killed while sightseeing at the top of the World Trade Center.

No, of course not.
He was eating dinner with his cousin at an outdoor restaurant.

He wasn't exactly storming the citadel from the reports I've seen.
But I would be interested in seeing more facts.

 

[g5000]

If any of these three had set foot on US soil, they would have gotten their due process.

The rejected our system. They were at war with our system. I feel no pity for the two adults. Their rights were not violated. They waived their rights when they declared war on us.

I feel some pity for the lad who was misled by his father.