Well I guess Killing Americans with due process is OK

[IlarMeilyr]

^ some simpletons cannot grasp that "due process" is not accorded to the belligerents one is trying to kill on the battlefield in times of war. There is no particular "process" to which they are "due," except good faith efforts to comply with the laws and rules of war including treaties and accords.

None of the Americans killed were on the battlefield, none were even in a country to which we are not ally. The constitution of the united states affords ALL Americans certain right whether we like those people or not. What is the big deal of having a military or civilian court at least review the evidence and make a guilty/innocent verdict? Sorry I think the same thing would happen if due process was followed. There was no immediate threat, THEY WERE NOT ON ANY BATTLEFIELD.

I'm glad you fell into the snare.

You are wrong.

"Battlefield" has a very different meaning in a war against the terrorists. If you doubt that, then you just don't bother looking at the evidence and the facts. The World Trade Center's twin Towers were not a battlefield, except the terrorists turned them into one.

The Constitution of the United States doesn't protect a bank robber from getting shot by a responding law enforcement officer, in the middle of the bank robber's criminal activity, either.

Similarly, a terrorist where ever and whenever found is subject to engagement as an enemy combatant.

 

[bendog]

It has been and always will be the presidents call, not the CIA's. The CIA may have the go ahead but it is up to the President.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Yemen somehow had something to do with 9/11? And of course it is the President's call that is why he would be the war criminal. The president of the unitied states is not suppose to be judge, jury and executioner. At least when it comes to UNITED STATES citizens. I thought the war in Afghanistan was all about getting those responsible for 9/11. And that that left was protesting the war in Iraq because there was no connection. So now we are bombing ally countries on the same pretense? Really?

Two things. We are not attacking Yemen as the government there has given approval to attack al Qaeda strongholds in the south. Second, Congress has given the President the authority "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

I'm sure you can drum up some al Qaeda sympathizers and Teabag nutters to agree with you that he is a war criminal, but, well, they're just nucking futz.

As you noted only one person was actually targeted, so due process can only apply to him, as unintentional results of govt actions do not have any due process implications. Negligence implications, perhaps, and money damages from harm, perhaps. But due process in criminal law only involved the intentional deprivation of life or liberty.

But, I'm uncomfortable with the "battlefield" or "war" analogy. It's one thing if it's a situation like Lindh, who actually joined a military body and was in an actual battle. But, here, we're talking about a targeted, pre-medicated killing. So, imo, there are Due Process implications, but I'm ok with how they were addressed in this situation.

DP involves, Notice of the charges, right to counsel, right to exculpatory evidence, right to defense including cross-examining accusors, burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, help with getting witnesses, impartial fact finder, and appeal.

Due Process, Criminal Law

The guy got some form of all the above. No one contends he was innocent of plotting against us. Our actions were scrutinized. The one thing I don't see is the administration never went to any FISA court or anything.

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO - the legal case was always a little iffy (imho) in terms of suing individuals within the administration for collective U.S. government activity. I think the question really is a political one and I hope that the release of the "justification" memo will provide the fodder to get that political discussion going in earnest.

I'm very uncomfortable with "strike zones," "kill lists," targeting based on behavior patterns, attacks well outside combat areas, and the apparent lack of safeguards against collateral damage and killing innocent bystanders.

I realize that a lot of this activity must be conducted in secret, but I also believe that the broader policies that lay out the ground rules for these activities need to be debated. These things must be conducted in a way that complies with who and what we are in the United States of America.

Just MHO.

What relief does someone have when their loved one is killed?

None (imho) why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's just so wrong and evil and exposes the Left not as principled antiwar activists but as Obama Fluffing Cultists who won't say a peep against their Messiah

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Freewill]

^ some simpletons cannot grasp that "due process" is not accorded to the belligerents one is trying to kill on the battlefield in times of war. There is no particular "process" to which they are "due," except good faith efforts to comply with the laws and rules of war including treaties and accords.

None of the Americans killed were on the battlefield, none were even in a country to which we are not ally. The constitution of the united states affords ALL Americans certain right whether we like those people or not. What is the big deal of having a military or civilian court at least review the evidence and make a guilty/innocent verdict? Sorry I think the same thing would happen if due process was followed. There was no immediate threat, THEY WERE NOT ON ANY BATTLEFIELD.

I'm glad you fell into the snare.

You are wrong.

"Battlefield" has a very different meaning in a war against the terrorists. If you doubt that, then you just don't bother looking at the evidence and the facts. The World Trade Center's twin Towers were not a battlefield, except the terrorists turned them into one.

The Constitution of the United States doesn't protect a bank robber from getting shot by a responding law enforcement officer, in the middle of the bank robber's criminal activity, either.

Similarly, a terrorist where ever and whenever found is subject to engagement as an enemy combatant.

HA, me fall into a trap how about you? Now you want to make the war on terror world war 3. I guess if you want to call the world a battlefield then that logically extends to the US. So now there would be no restriction on using drones in the US. Besides, what battle was the 16 year old engaged in as he ate dinner? Even if the target was alledgedly someone else?

 

[Freewill]

^ some simpletons cannot grasp that "due process" is not accorded to the belligerents one is trying to kill on the battlefield in times of war. There is no particular "process" to which they are "due," except good faith efforts to comply with the laws and rules of war including treaties and accords.

None of the Americans killed were on the battlefield, none were even in a country to which we are not ally. The constitution of the united states affords ALL Americans certain right whether we like those people or not. What is the big deal of having a military or civilian court at least review the evidence and make a guilty/innocent verdict? Sorry I think the same thing would happen if due process was followed. There was no immediate threat, THEY WERE NOT ON ANY BATTLEFIELD.

I'm glad you fell into the snare.

You are wrong.

"Battlefield" has a very different meaning in a war against the terrorists. If you doubt that, then you just don't bother looking at the evidence and the facts. The World Trade Center's twin Towers were not a battlefield, except the terrorists turned them into one.

So we are now engaged in WW3? If you are calling the WTC the battlefield then you are ready for drones to be used in America? Really?

No one wants a terrorist to live. And if the rule of law was followed these people would be a legit target, no doubt, with the exception of the 16 year old boy. I am not sure why you can't accept that we can do both, preserve the rule of law and rid our selves of these people.
The Constitution of the United States doesn't protect a bank robber from getting shot by a responding law enforcement officer, in the middle of the bank robber's criminal activity, either.

Certainly does. A police officer can shoot a person when they are an immediate threat. Executions are not allowed.

Similarly, a terrorist where ever and whenever found is subject to engagement as an enemy combatant.

As should bank robbers and rapists but by American law even those scum have a right to due process. Once again, no one is saying that these guys are the good guys what we are saying is that there is a system of justice spelled out in the constitution and we are not even following the pretense let alone the letter.

To wit