Wow. Yet ANOTHER instance of me giving props to Pres. Obama

[L.K.Eder]

Quibblers reside in the grey (or is it "gray"?) zones.

If a suspected enemy soldier is approaching you in a war zone, do you stop and say to yourself, "Gee. That COULD be an innocent lost civilian approaching me through that forbidden area, so I best hold my fire!"? Or do you, at a relatively safe distance, shoot the sumbitch to avoid the prospect that he will blow up his vest-bomb thereby snuffing out you and your comrades-in-arms?

If you shoot him, and he turns out to have been a fucking innocent civilian lost American, do you then say "Oh shit. I MEANT to give him a fair 'trial' and assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?"

grey is BE, gray is AE.

the unlawful combatant travesty is manifest in gitmo, and bagram.
that was the prelude.

the next step is to declare a shoot to kill order for persons deemed to have taken up arms with al qaeda, or "the enemy".

it now extends to US citizens.

irrelevant to me actually.

i just observe that it just needs "someone" to declare another person to be "the enemy" to justify executing this person.

this solely depends on the "someone".

i don't trust "someone".

"someone" needs to be closely controlled.

Sometimes, outside those gray (or gray) areas, the answer is painfully obvious.

President Obama used to do cocaine. The best evidence of that? The asswipe SAID so himself.

al-Awlaki was an American who DID take up with al qaeda in time of war AGAINST America. The best evidence of that? Again, his own fucking words.

Now, steering you BACK to the question (and the hypothetical scenario which you seem to have ducked):

IF the guy is approaching you in the war zone, through that forbidden area, do you take the chance that he is going to blow the shit out of you and your comrades in arms with his al qaeda approved martyr vest bomb (ask for it by name!) OR do you shoot the guy from a safe distance?

that is ROE and for the military to discuss.

you are derailing your own thread.

or do you think that in your scenario the suspect is waving a US passport?

 

[Liability]

@Liability-the whole war time senario you put up, have you been in a situation where that applies? Have you been on patroles in the same area week after week seeing a buddy getting turned into hamburger meat 40 feet away from you? Have you seen your point man meet his maker when a man in a dress comes up to him saying, "No shoot, No shoot, he that way!" If not, please I emplore you to refrain from making judgements on decisions that were made in an environment that you have never experienced and your only contact with is 8K miles away through a TV.

Application denied.

The point doesn't change regardless of my experience or inexperience.

The point is STILL that the guy trying to kill you and your comrades in arms is the enemy regardless of his citizenship.

 

[Danjb25]

@L.K. Eder-Your ignorance on this topic is troublesome as well. There is no shoot to kill order, your term "justify excuting this person" seems to presuade the reader that the trigger puller is doing so to an unarmed person, while they are on their knees waiting for the end. Causion is elementary to proceeding with any act of life taking. Fratricide is an unfortunate reality of war that should not be swept away as an eventuality. I personally have to take a four class quarterly about fratricide. However, ignorance in the mind of an intellegent person begets ignorant statements. You should know study and empathy is the only way to come close to a logical conclusion.

 

[Danjb25]

@Liability-the whole war time senario you put up, have you been in a situation where that applies? Have you been on patroles in the same area week after week seeing a buddy getting turned into hamburger meat 40 feet away from you? Have you seen your point man meet his maker when a man in a dress comes up to him saying, "No shoot, No shoot, he that way!" If not, please I emplore you to refrain from making judgements on decisions that were made in an environment that you have never experienced and your only contact with is 8K miles away through a TV.

Application denied.

The point doesn't change regardless of my experience or inexperience.

The point is STILL that the guy trying to kill you and your comrades in arms is the enemy regardless of his citizenship.

I applaud your closemindedness on this. It cannot be assumed that anyone is or is not the enemy. however you are right citizenship makes little difference in the protection of ones own life as well as that of your comrades in the persuit of restraining a group or nation from waging war against America.

 

[Sallow]

The thing about Liability and I..is that we are both living in or close to NYC. We've seen up close and personal what one batshit crazy terrorist can do to a city.

So if some idiot starts mouthing off about taking up arms with Al Qaeda.

Hasta La Vista Baby!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8DHO7XFVkI]Terminator Hasta la vista Baby - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

grey is BE, gray is AE.

the unlawful combatant travesty is manifest in gitmo, and bagram.
that was the prelude.

the next step is to declare a shoot to kill order for persons deemed to have taken up arms with al qaeda, or "the enemy".

it now extends to US citizens.

irrelevant to me actually.

i just observe that it just needs "someone" to declare another person to be "the enemy" to justify executing this person.

this solely depends on the "someone".

i don't trust "someone".

"someone" needs to be closely controlled.

Sometimes, outside those gray (or gray) areas, the answer is painfully obvious.

President Obama used to do cocaine. The best evidence of that? The asswipe SAID so himself.

al-Awlaki was an American who DID take up with al qaeda in time of war AGAINST America. The best evidence of that? Again, his own fucking words.

Now, steering you BACK to the question (and the hypothetical scenario which you seem to have ducked):

IF the guy is approaching you in the war zone, through that forbidden area, do you take the chance that he is going to blow the shit out of you and your comrades in arms with his al qaeda approved martyr vest bomb (ask for it by name!) OR do you shoot the guy from a safe distance?

that is ROE and for the military to discuss.

you are derailing your own thread.

or do you think that in your scenario the suspect is waving a US passport?

It's not derailing anything.

Rules of Engagement are to be followed like any other lawful order.

But that doesn't change the FACT that sometimes a guy who is approaching you IS trying to kill you and your fellow soldiers.

So the question remains: do you accord him some "presumption of innocence" as though this were some LEGAL issue (susceptible to an orderly resolution in a Court of Law); or do you defend your position against the prospect of a possible (maybe probable) attack by a treacherous enemy?

 

[L.K.Eder]

@L.K. Eder-Your ignorance on this topic is troublesome as well. There is no shoot to kill order, your term "justify excuting this person" seems to presuade the reader that the trigger puller is doing so to an unarmed person, while they are on their knees waiting for the end. Causion is elementary to proceeding with any act of life taking. Fratricide is an unfortunate reality of war that should not be swept away as an eventuality. I personally have to take a four class quarterly about fratricide. However, ignorance in the mind of an intellegent person begets ignorant statements. You should know study and empathy is the only way to come close to a logical conclusion.

i blame this confusion on liability, who mixed the al-awlaki remote execution with roe problems.

 

[Jackson]

No joke. Every once in a blue moon, I unceremoniously break with my general policy of unrelenting criticism of President Obama. Generally, I find him to be the Asshat in Chief.

HOWEVER, when he does something right, it seems only fair to acknowledge that, too.

I see (linked off of Drudge) that the President's lawyers have staked out a legal claim that Americans who take up arms with the likes of al qaeda against the Unite States are not immune from being targeted AS enemy combatants.

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. * * * *

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US - Yahoo! News

Good for them and good for President Obama.

I say they (and the President) are exactly right on the mark!

Many know I am not a fan of Obama and for just reason. On the same ticket, I will give credit when it's due him. This is a time I have given him credit as well.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Sometimes, outside those gray (or gray) areas, the answer is painfully obvious.

President Obama used to do cocaine. The best evidence of that? The asswipe SAID so himself.

al-Awlaki was an American who DID take up with al qaeda in time of war AGAINST America. The best evidence of that? Again, his own fucking words.

Now, steering you BACK to the question (and the hypothetical scenario which you seem to have ducked):

IF the guy is approaching you in the war zone, through that forbidden area, do you take the chance that he is going to blow the shit out of you and your comrades in arms with his al qaeda approved martyr vest bomb (ask for it by name!) OR do you shoot the guy from a safe distance?

that is ROE and for the military to discuss.

you are derailing your own thread.

or do you think that in your scenario the suspect is waving a US passport?

It's not derailing anything.

Rules of Engagement are to be followed like any other lawful order.

But that doesn't change the FACT that sometimes a guy who is approaching you IS trying to kill you and your fellow soldiers.

So the question remains: do you accord him some "presumption of innocence" as though this were some LEGAL issue (susceptible to an orderly resolution in a Court of Law); or do you defend your position against the prospect of a possible (maybe probable) attack by a treacherous enemy?

you are trying to control the field, by directing the discussion to this self-serving scenario.

noted, but refused.

the al-awlaki execution, which is central to YOUR thread, is a totally different scenario.

basically, a Wanted list is provided by "someone".

people on this list are vogelfrei.

sorry, that is the german word.

means, basically, they do not get protection by any law. anyone can kill them.

now, the problem remains, who is creating that list.

is this codified in US law?

is it used only in extraordinary situations, where it is obvious, (OBL, al-awlaki)

or is this going to be a template for generic use?

i am unconcerned, actually.

because i am not that naive that i don't think that this is not current practice already.

but now it extends to US citizens, as well.

so you should be concerned.

 

[Mad Scientist]

who gets to decide if someone has indeed taken up arms with al qaeda?

who gets to decide if someone is an unlawful combatant?

The US Gov't will point to the grease spot where a person used to exist and say:

"That was an enemy combatant. We can't show you the evidence because it's classified and would compromise out people in the field fighting the War on Terror. Trust us".

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yes, but who determines whether they are committing an act of war?

SOMETIMES the answer is painfully obvious.

Like the underwear bomber.

When the smoke pours out of his panties and he's burned his willie, and the prompt rendering of medical assistance reveals that he'd been wearing a Depends brand panty bomb, THERE ISN'T really any question about whether or not he'd been engaged in an intended act of war.

US Underwear Bomber Allowed on Plane:
US State Department Admits Underwear Bomber Allowed on Plane To (Supposedly) Help With Investigations into Al-Qaida | WEB OF EVIDENCE: WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
CIA shielded Flight 253 "underwear" bomber - Gordon Wagner - Open Salon

We support Al Qaida in Libya and we put the underwear bomber on the plane. But we're supposed to believe the gov't when they say a US Citizen is a Terrorist?

 

[Liability]

@L.K. Eder-Your ignorance on this topic is troublesome as well. There is no shoot to kill order, your term "justify excuting this person" seems to presuade the reader that the trigger puller is doing so to an unarmed person, while they are on their knees waiting for the end. Causion is elementary to proceeding with any act of life taking. Fratricide is an unfortunate reality of war that should not be swept away as an eventuality. I personally have to take a four class quarterly about fratricide. However, ignorance in the mind of an intellegent person begets ignorant statements. You should know study and empathy is the only way to come close to a logical conclusion.

i blame this confusion on liability, who mixed the al-awlaki remote execution with roe problems.

Nah. I was in the early stages of making a point in a step by step process of analogy to dray you, unwillingly, to a logical conclusion you urgently wish to avoid.

So, I blame any confusion on you, your educators, your namby-pamby political "philosophy" and on your fundamental personal flaws.

 

[L.K.Eder]

@L.K. Eder-Your ignorance on this topic is troublesome as well. There is no shoot to kill order, your term "justify excuting this person" seems to presuade the reader that the trigger puller is doing so to an unarmed person, while they are on their knees waiting for the end. Causion is elementary to proceeding with any act of life taking. Fratricide is an unfortunate reality of war that should not be swept away as an eventuality. I personally have to take a four class quarterly about fratricide. However, ignorance in the mind of an intellegent person begets ignorant statements. You should know study and empathy is the only way to come close to a logical conclusion.

i blame this confusion on liability, who mixed the al-awlaki remote execution with roe problems.

Nah. I was in the early stages of making a point in a step by step process of analogy to dray you, unwillingly, to a logical conclusion you urgently wish to avoid.

So, I blame any confusion on you, your educators, your namby-pamby political "philosophy" and on your fundamental personal flaws.

shit, i totally missed that.

 

[Liability]

Yes, but who determines whether they are committing an act of war?

SOMETIMES the answer is painfully obvious.

Like the underwear bomber.

When the smoke pours out of his panties and he's burned his willie, and the prompt rendering of medical assistance reveals that he'd been wearing a Depends brand panty bomb, THERE ISN'T really any question about whether or not he'd been engaged in an intended act of war.

US Underwear Bomber Allowed on Plane:
US State Department Admits Underwear Bomber Allowed on Plane To (Supposedly) Help With Investigations into Al-Qaida | WEB OF EVIDENCE: WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
CIA shielded Flight 253 "underwear" bomber - Gordon Wagner - Open Salon

We support Al Qaida in Libya and we put the underwear bomber on the plane. But we're supposed to believe the gov't when they say a US Citizen is a Terrorist?

I never said the government is perfect. Fuck. We have the Asswipe in Chief serving as conclusive evidence to the contrary.

But SOMETIMES there aint no doubt.

I acknowledge the legitimacy of the complaint made by LK and others that SOMETIMES the problem is in the grey (gray) areas.

Even so, if we would blast a non citizen to smithereens based on solid (albeit less than totally conclusive) evidence, then why should an American combatant be treated any better?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Quibblers reside in the grey (or is it "gray"?) zones.

If a suspected enemy soldier is approaching you in a war zone, do you stop and say to yourself, "Gee. That COULD be an innocent lost civilian approaching me through that forbidden area, so I best hold my fire!"? Or do you, at a relatively safe distance, shoot the sumbitch to avoid the prospect that he will blow up his vest-bomb thereby snuffing out you and your comrades-in-arms?

If you shoot him, and he turns out to have been a fucking innocent civilian lost American, do you then say "Oh shit. I MEANT to give him a fair 'trial' and assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?"

grey is BE, gray is AE.

the unlawful combatant travesty is manifest in gitmo, and bagram.
that was the prelude.

the next step is to declare a shoot to kill order for persons deemed to have taken up arms with al qaeda, or "the enemy".

it now extends to US citizens.

irrelevant to me actually.

i just observe that it just needs "someone" to declare another person to be "the enemy" to justify executing this person.

this solely depends on the "someone".

i don't trust "someone".

"someone" needs to be closely controlled.

Sometimes, outside those gray (or gray) areas, the answer is painfully obvious.

President Obama used to do cocaine. The best evidence of that? The asswipe SAID so himself.

al-Awlaki was an American who DID take up with al qaeda in time of war AGAINST America. The best evidence of that? Again, his own fucking words.

Now, steering you BACK to the question (and the hypothetical scenario which you seem to have ducked):

IF the guy is approaching you in the war zone, through that forbidden area, do you take the chance that he is going to blow the shit out of you and your comrades in arms with his al qaeda approved martyr vest bomb (ask for it by name!) OR do you shoot the guy from a safe distance?

Sometimes yes, it is outside the "gray area". Sometimes it's clear as day.

More often, it's not that clear. That's the whole point of our legal system - that's why we have trials, and lawyers, and juries - because it's very rarely clear.

As to your hypothetical, I would demand they stop approaching, and shoot them if they took another step.

Now here's a hypothetical for you: What would you do if a friend of yours was arrested in the middle of the night, held without charges or a trial, and no one would tell you why, or show you the evidence, or anything.

What if it happened to your spouse or child?

What if it happened to you?

 

[L.K.Eder]

as far as i know, liability is lawyer, or prosecutor.

he is definitely familiar with gray zones.

that's where the money is, if he is a lawyer, hahahah.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Fact is, President Obama has been responsible for the deaths of more al queda and Taliban than any other president. He has caught more terrorists than any other president. Bush and company couldn't be bothered to go after bin Laden but Obama did and got him. While the pubs were busy talking amnesty and worrying about their own crabgrass and the cost of strawberries, Obama has deported more criminal illegals than any other president.

This is nothing more than the facts that Dems have been watching all along while the pubs/bags have been repeating the lies spoon fed to them by Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and the MUSLIM ARAB who controls the programming at Fucks.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Fact is, President Obama has been responsible for the deaths of more al queda and Taliban than any other president. He has caught more terrorists than any other president. Bush and company couldn't be bothered to go after bin Laden but Obama did and got him. While the pubs were busy talking amnesty and worrying about their own crabgrass and the cost of strawberries, Obama has deported more criminal illegals than any other president.

This is nothing more than the facts that Dems have been watching all along while the pubs/bags have been repeating the lies spoon fed to them by Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and the MUSLIM ARAB who controls the programming at Fucks.

this is not a partisan issue.

it is a, OOOOPS it could happen HERE, issue.


HAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[rdean]

who gets to decide if someone has indeed taken up arms with al qaeda?

who gets to decide if someone is an unlawful combatant?

We don't need to decide if they come right out and tell us. Did that really have to be explained?

 

[L.K.Eder]

who gets to decide if someone has indeed taken up arms with al qaeda?

who gets to decide if someone is an unlawful combatant?

We don't need to decide if they come right out and tell us. Did that really have to be explained?

yes.

figure it out.


i love this thread, it is like bizarro universe.