Bill To End US Extrajudicial Killings

[Tech_Esq]

It's the standard we have always used. So have all armies throughout the world. Some you can easily tell, we have the Imam in Yemen subborning acts of war against the US. This qualifies him for the hit parade. Don't waste my tax payer dollars treating him as a criminal. He is a warrior for the enemy and needs to be treated as such.

Which does not make it right, it just means no one is going to call us on it.

History tells us that the victors write the history.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You are living in the past.

You need to learn to adapt to the world you live in. Or perish.

I am living in the past? Aren't you the one that is insisting that we have always done things this way?

I'm applying a consistent CONCEPT to a current set of facts. You are insisting on adhering to an order that no longer exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are living in the past.

You need to learn to adapt to the world you live in. Or perish.

I am living in the past? Aren't you the one that is insisting that we have always done things this way?

I'm applying a consistent CONCEPT to a current set of facts. You are insisting on adhering to an order that no longer exists.

I am asserting the moral belief that all the government assassinating a person without due process is wrong. Am I confused, or are you trying to claim that this was the way things were done in the past, and it does not now work because things have changed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's the standard we have always used. So have all armies throughout the world. Some you can easily tell, we have the Imam in Yemen subborning acts of war against the US. This qualifies him for the hit parade. Don't waste my tax payer dollars treating him as a criminal. He is a warrior for the enemy and needs to be treated as such.

Which does not make it right, it just means no one is going to call us on it.

History tells us that the victors write the history.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I am living in the past? Aren't you the one that is insisting that we have always done things this way?

I'm applying a consistent CONCEPT to a current set of facts. You are insisting on adhering to an order that no longer exists.

I am asserting the moral belief that all the government assassinating a person without due process is wrong. Am I confused, or are you trying to claim that this was the way things were done in the past, and it does not now work because things have changed.

You are confused. You are placing an overly large amount of emphasis on one response that was being used as a demonstration.

I'm not too interested in having a discussion about your moral beliefs. You are entitled to those, whatever they are. If you want to have a policy discussion then go ahead.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Which does not make it right, it just means no one is going to call us on it.

History tells us that the victors write the history.

Thank you for making my point.

If it does, then it makes both our points.

It doesn't pay to be the vanquished.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are confused. You are placing an overly large amount of emphasis on one response that was being used as a demonstration.

I'm not too interested in having a discussion about your moral beliefs. You are entitled to those, whatever they are. If you want to have a policy discussion then go ahead.

The policy is wrong, even if it is legal. All you can do to justify it is point to the fact that everyone does it. If you want to have a policy discussion go ahead, but so far all you have done is spout nonsense.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You are confused. You are placing an overly large amount of emphasis on one response that was being used as a demonstration.

I'm not too interested in having a discussion about your moral beliefs. You are entitled to those, whatever they are. If you want to have a policy discussion then go ahead.

The policy is wrong, even if it is legal. All you can do to justify it is point to the fact that everyone does it. If you want to have a policy discussion go ahead, but so far all you have done is spout nonsense.

This issue is this. The battlefield has changed. We can either adapt to an enemy that is networked, but asymmetrical, global, but local, armed (sometimes heavily), but not uniformed, multinational, but not of any nation, or perish because of it.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the United States is entitled to some sort of permanence and that we cannot be hurt. Our place here is as temporary as our vigilance allows. We must not, should not and cannot be afraid or too timid or too "civilized" to recognize our enemies as our enemies and defend ourselves by killing those that would kill us.

It is not simply allowable, it is a requirement that those holding office, whose first duty it is to provide security for the nation-state, exercise that duty to its uttermost and tirelessly. For if they fail, nothing else matters. Don't be so quick to think that these are some fringe extreme Muslims and that they don't have the wherewithal to take on the US and win. You may notice how you haven't been run down in the streets by Muslim groups protesting against the hijacking of their religion by these "extremists". Ever wonder why that might be?

I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in clear-eyed realism and under-estimating your enemies is never a good strategy.

Trying to dig individuals out of holes in the middle east to bring them to trial is not a serious way to fight a war. It's just that strategy that got a ship blown up, two embassies bombed, the Pentagon and WTC blown up. That is a manifestly and demonstrably failed policy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This issue is this. The battlefield has changed. We can either adapt to an enemy that is networked, but asymmetrical, global, but local, armed (sometimes heavily), but not uniformed, multinational, but not of any nation, or perish because of it.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the United States is entitled to some sort of permanence and that we cannot be hurt. Our place here is as temporary as our vigilance allows. We must not, should not and cannot be afraid or too timid or too "civilized" to recognize our enemies as our enemies and defend ourselves by killing those that would kill us.

It is not simply allowable, it is a requirement that those holding office, whose first duty it is to provide security for the nation-state, exercise that duty to its uttermost and tirelessly. For if they fail, nothing else matters. Don't be so quick to think that these are some fringe extreme Muslims and that they don't have the wherewithal to take on the US and win. You may notice how you haven't been run down in the streets by Muslim groups protesting against the hijacking of their religion by these "extremists". Ever wonder why that might be?

I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in clear-eyed realism and under-estimating your enemies is never a good strategy.

Trying to dig individuals out of holes in the middle east to bring them to trial is not a serious way to fight a war. It's just that strategy that got a ship blown up, two embassies bombed, the Pentagon and WTC blown up. That is a manifestly and demonstrably failed policy.

No where have I said that we do not have a right to stop anyone who attacks us, but simply ordering the killing of someone who has done nothing anyone can pin down but talk is a stretch. If we can kill someone who may or may not have conspired against the country on the word of the president just because they are in another country? Does that mean he can order the killing of anyone, even if they are inside our borders, if it might mean that we can save a few lives in the process?

This cannot be the only way to deal with the problem. Presenting it is an either/or ignores the fact that we have other options than either blowing them up with a missile or sending in the Army. We have forces that train to handle situations like this, but we refuse to use them because we don't want to offend countries that shelter these people, so the president orders their killing, and we sit back and feel safer even though it is a bit like getting the death penalty in California.

It really doesn't matter because these guys sit around for in places we won't attack. The only way we could kill them is to actually send someone in and do it personally, which negates all the arguments against not trying to capture them and drag them back.

 

[Madeline]

How could anyone argue against Kucinich's efforts in this regard? But I suppose they will.

There is no justification for the government ever killing anyone, especially without due process. Everyone should be behing Kucinch on this, including Obama.

That's a lovely sentiment, Quantum Windbag. I'd support a bill that required we furnish a US citizen with due process if the offer does not endanger National Security. By contrast, what YOU have proposed would disallow the use of deadly force even by law enforcement officers here in the US.

The harsh reality is, sometimes killing an aggressor is the ONLY way to protect Americans, and when that is necessary I want them killed. No one seems to have any evidence that we are offing people willy-nilly and until that comes to light, I'm all good with extrajudicial killings.

 

[Madeline]

I'm a firm believer in trying criminals, but unlike Denny here, I know the difference between a war and a crime scene.

Do you really?

Killing unlawful enemy combatants should be the rule no matter their country of origin.

OK - I get it. Just call them "enemy combatants" and voila! - you can hunt 'em down and snuff 'em out with impunity.

If I hide a bomb in a downtown building and then set it off, I would be tried in criminal court, convicted and sent to prison. That is what we call a crime. And the place where it happens is a crime scene. If I take over a 737 and fly it into a building, same thing - I would be tried and convicted in a criminal court of law. I may even do all of these things because I am crazy, and think the government needs to be abolished and the best way to make a statement about that is to do something violent to a lot of people. Doesn't matter. It is a crime and it is tried in criminal court. I am no more an "enemy combatant" than I am a college cheerleader.

What is the difference if the acts are committed by Middle East guys who hate America? Still a crime. Still should be processed as a crime in our criminal justice system.

Of course, if we have a cowboy for a president and a bunch of raving, John Wayne type neocons egging him on, it can be called an "act of war" and those who do it dubbed "enemy combatants," so, when we catch them, we can kill them on sight, deny them the rights normally provided to one accused of crime, torture them or do whatever the hell we want with them.

I, for one, don't buy it. Extrajudicial killings are simply wrong. Kucinich is spot on with this bill.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, if you are a US citizen residing in Iran and manufacturing bombs you conspire to ship into the US and detonate, I'm all good with killing you without due process if the Powers That Be decide that due process is contrary to the National Security.

If you return to the US with a dozen suitcase bombs you plan to detonate and are killed as you are prevented from doing so, once again I'm good with that.

If you are sitting in a home in Maryland, plotting to bring bombs and bombers to the US, and law enforcement catches you AND your trial does not endanger National Security, THEN and ONLY then do I object to your extrajudicial killing.

For me, it does not turn on what is a crime vs. an act of war. It turns on the policy which we feel is proper to guide the Executive in the use of Deadly Force to protect us -- and I say they need some latitude, especially since there is ZERO evidence that any President has abused that power.

And BTW, I'm also good with the death penalty for whomever it is that is telling CIA secrets to the NY Times. THAT is treason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How could anyone argue against Kucinich's efforts in this regard? But I suppose they will.

There is no justification for the government ever killing anyone, especially without due process. Everyone should be behing Kucinch on this, including Obama.

That's a lovely sentiment, Quantum Windbag. I'd support a bill that required we furnish a US citizen with due process if the offer does not endanger National Security. By contrast, what YOU have proposed would disallow the use of deadly force even by law enforcement officers here in the US.

The harsh reality is, sometimes killing an aggressor is the ONLY way to protect Americans, and when that is necessary I want them killed. No one seems to have any evidence that we are offing people willy-nilly and until that comes to light, I'm all good with extrajudicial killings.

No it would not. LEOs are empowered by the state to enforce the laws, not to commit murder. But they do have the right to use deadly force in the defense of themselves, or others, just like everyone else on the planet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, if you are a US citizen residing in Iran and manufacturing bombs you conspire to ship into the US and detonate, I'm all good with killing you without due process if the Powers That Be decide that due process is contrary to the National Security.

If you return to the US with a dozen suitcase bombs you plan to detonate and are killed as you are prevented from doing so, once again I'm good with that.

If you are sitting in a home in Maryland, plotting to bring bombs and bombers to the US, and law enforcement catches you AND your trial does not endanger National Security, THEN and ONLY then do I object to your extrajudicial killing.

For me, it does not turn on what is a crime vs. an act of war. It turns on the policy which we feel is proper to guide the Executive in the use of Deadly Force to protect us -- and I say they need some latitude, especially since there is ZERO evidence that any President has abused that power.

And BTW, I'm also good with the death penalty for whomever it is that is telling CIA secrets to the NY Times. THAT is treason.

FYI, the Obama administration publicly announced the kill order, so the only person committing treason here is Obama.

Now to the flaws in your argument. The Constitution does not just protect citizens, it protects everyone who comes under its jurisdiction. By expanding executive power to include the right to kill, without trial, residents of another country you are violating that countries sovereignty and the person who is being targeted civil rights. This should raise two large flags with you, as a lawyer. Do you feel as comfortable with a foreign country doing the same with someone within our borders?

We have known terrorists who reside in this country legally, who have admitted that they are responsible for killing people in other countries. At least one has been convicted in another country, and that country has applied to us to extradite him. So far, we have refused. Do those countries have the right to enter US borders and kill them in the name of their national security?

Shoving everything under the blanket of national security implies you want to carve out exceptions to the bill of rights. Why does the president only have the power to order a murder if someone is outside the US? What if that person is actually discovered to be in the US, and we cannot arrest him because we have no legal proof, can the president then order him to be killed in the name of national security?

Just because we have no proof that someone is not abusing a power it does not mean they are not doing so. We had no proof Nixon was wiretapping anyone before he was caught.

 

[Father Time]

I'm a firm believer in trying criminals, but unlike Denny here, I know the difference between a war and a crime scene.

Do you really?

Killing unlawful enemy combatants should be the rule no matter their country of origin.

OK - I get it. Just call them "enemy combatants" and voila! - you can hunt 'em down and snuff 'em out with impunity.

If I hide a bomb in a downtown building and then set it off, I would be tried in criminal court, convicted and sent to prison. That is what we call a crime. And the place where it happens is a crime scene. If I take over a 737 and fly it into a building, same thing - I would be tried and convicted in a criminal court of law. I may even do all of these things because I am crazy, and think the government needs to be abolished and the best way to make a statement about that is to do something violent to a lot of people. Doesn't matter. It is a crime and it is tried in criminal court. I am no more an "enemy combatant" than I am a college cheerleader.

What is the difference if the acts are committed by Middle East guys who hate America? Still a crime. Still should be processed as a crime in our criminal justice system.

Of course, if we have a cowboy for a president and a bunch of raving, John Wayne type neocons egging him on, it can be called an "act of war" and those who do it dubbed "enemy combatants," so, when we catch them, we can kill them on sight, deny them the rights normally provided to one accused of crime, torture them or do whatever the hell we want with them.

I, for one, don't buy it. Extrajudicial killings are simply wrong. Kucinich is spot on with this bill.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, if you are a US citizen residing in Iran and manufacturing bombs you conspire to ship into the US and detonate, I'm all good with killing you without due process if the Powers That Be decide that due process is contrary to the National Security.

So you think it's OK to let the government decide when they get to ignore due process? Why not just hand them all your freedom on a silver platter while you're at it.

If you are sitting in a home in Maryland, plotting to bring bombs and bombers to the US, and law enforcement catches you AND your trial does not endanger National Security, THEN and ONLY then do I object to your extrajudicial killing.

So wait you're good with violating the Constitution if you think it'll make us safer? Sorry but our rights do not take a backseat to safety and they NEVER did.

For me, it does not turn on what is a crime vs. an act of war. It turns on the policy which we feel is proper to guide the Executive in the use of Deadly Force to protect us -- and I say they need some latitude, especially since there is ZERO evidence that any President has abused that power.

And if a president does start abusing that power you think it would be easy to remove that power?

And BTW, I'm also good with the death penalty for whomever it is that is telling CIA secrets to the NY Times. THAT is treason.

No it's not. Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution and that does not qualify as treason. It's definite grounds for termination but it does not qualify as treason.

 

[Madeline]

What a bunch of dreamers you guys are. Do think the Israelis in the Mossad sit around wringing their hands over the killing of someone intent on harming Jews?

The US is a target of the zealot and the terrorist. Sometimes, deadly force is needed to assure the safety of Americans. That's undeniable. What I am hearing you guys say is that under these circumstances, you value due process for terrorists over American lives.

I don't. We shall have to agree to disagree...but if I ever need my back covered, I am not calling on any of you. The concepts of self-defense and defense of another seem to float right over y'alls heads.

 

[Father Time]

What a bunch of dreamers you guys are. Do think the Israelis in the Mossad sit around wringing their hands over the killing of someone intent on harming Jews?

Since when is that the standard we should adhere to?

The US is a target of the zealot and the terrorist. Sometimes, deadly force is needed to assure the safety of Americans. That's undeniable. What I am hearing you guys say is that under these circumstances, you value due process for terrorists over American lives.

Oh cut the hysterics, you fucking drama queen. Now go on and prove we need to give up our rights to assure our safety. If you can't do that you just have a bunch of hot air.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Ben Franklin.

I don't. We shall have to agree to disagree...but if I ever need my back covered, I am not calling on any of you. The concepts of self-defense and defense of another seem to float right over y'alls heads.

And the concept of rights seems to go over your head.

Here's a little hint, if we have to abandon them everytime the government or the populace gets afraid they aren't rights.

Oh and nice straw men. No one was talking about killing in self-defense until you brought it up.

You were saying that we should convict American citizens without a trial, so don't even pretend this is about the death penalty or the ethics of war or self-defense.

 

[Father Time]

I value law and order, I say they are thousand times better than a lynch mob or witch hunt mentality, that's one of the reasons why I fight for the rights of the accused.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is no justification for the government ever killing anyone, especially without due process. Everyone should be behing Kucinch on this, including Obama.

The justification is called war. Perhaps you've heard of this????

Here we go.....

War is not murder. Targeting individuals who are judged guilty of committing criminal acts and killing them is not war.

This is a joke. This decision is not some damn willy nilly lets just kill him order. He is ACTIVELY engaged in hostilities against America and THAT makes it a battleground. I would be against this if he were held up in England, here or any non hostile nation. Instead he is hiding in hostile territory and working for the enemy there. In your world, it would be wrong to bomb an enemy encampment full of bloodthirsty enemies if there was an American in the middle of that compound directing it because he would not get a trial. Extracting someone in this situation would cost lives of the men and women protecting this country. It hurts to understand you are willing to sacrifice our young men and women to the enemy on the holier than thou stance that he needs a trial but I am not. Any time you want to sign up and go give him his trial you are more than welcome but until then he is a military target and our commander in chief is doing what is necessary to run a war.

As a side point, when wars are politically ran, which is exactly what you are doing by demanding he receive a trial, we LOSE and it costs thousands of lives. Wars need to be run on military advantage and that is what is being done.

I'm a firm believer in trying criminals, but unlike Denny here, I know the difference between a war and a crime scene.

Do you really?

Killing unlawful enemy combatants should be the rule no matter their country of origin.

OK - I get it. Just call them "enemy combatants" and voila! - you can hunt 'em down and snuff 'em out with impunity.

If I hide a bomb in a downtown building and then set it off, I would be tried in criminal court, convicted and sent to prison. That is what we call a crime. And the place where it happens is a crime scene. If I take over a 737 and fly it into a building, same thing - I would be tried and convicted in a criminal court of law. I may even do all of these things because I am crazy, and think the government needs to be abolished and the best way to make a statement about that is to do something violent to a lot of people. Doesn't matter. It is a crime and it is tried in criminal court. I am no more an "enemy combatant" than I am a college cheerleader.

What is the difference if the acts are committed by Middle East guys who hate America? Still a crime. Still should be processed as a crime in our criminal justice system.

Of course, if we have a cowboy for a president and a bunch of raving, John Wayne type neocons egging him on, it can be called an "act of war" and those who do it dubbed "enemy combatants," so, when we catch them, we can kill them on sight, deny them the rights normally provided to one accused of crime, torture them or do whatever the hell we want with them.

I, for one, don't buy it. Extrajudicial killings are simply wrong. Kucinich is spot on with this bill.

The difference is location, feasibility and activity. He is located in a hostile environment where large scale ops are not an option and he is actively engaged in hostilities. All that feeds into the fact it is not feasible to capture yet his actions must be ceased. All that leaves is elimination through covert ops. That is where these kill orders come from, not some cowboy bullshit. It is easy for you to sit here on the ground and judge the actions of the military members that have to go out there and do these things. It is a little harder to look those same solders in the eye and tell them some of them will die today because elimination is not an option but they die well because the enemy will get a trial.

 

[Toome]

Sorry, folks, but I think there's a fundamental flaw with this whole story. First of all, I don't believe there is any law or directive that legally permits the President of the United States to knowingly kill a US citizen without due process. I think too many folks in here have been watching too many government conspiracy movies like Enemy of the State, Shooter, The Bourne Identity or any number of movies that seem to take it for granted that this is how the Government acts.

There is a fundamental difference between taking out a legitimate target whether or not a US citizen happens to be there and specifically marking a US citizen for assassination. In the first instance, the target is a location (e.g. terrorist training camp, bio-weapons development facility, enemy headquarters, etc.) and all persons located there run the risk of being blown up by a smart bomb or being taken out by a team of commandos. However, in the second case, the President or other government official would have to deliberately bypass the Constitution and essentially commit murder. Sorry, but that just doesn't happen no matter what you see in the movies.

Makes for great conspiracy theories. Makes for even better action movies, especially with Jason Statham, Jet Li, Clive Owen or other similar action star in it. But it does not happen in the real world.

I'm surprised that Kucinich would swallow the bait into believing that there needs to be a bill introduced in Congress when he should call for an investigation to determine if it's happening at all. If it is, there are already laws in place to press criminal charges against those involved.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry, folks, but I think there's a fundamental flaw with this whole story. First of all, I don't believe there is any law or directive that legally permits the President of the United States to knowingly kill a US citizen without due process. I think too many folks in here have been watching too many government conspiracy movies like Enemy of the State, Shooter, The Bourne Identity or any number of movies that seem to take it for granted that this is how the Government acts.

There is a fundamental difference between taking out a legitimate target whether or not a US citizen happens to be there and specifically marking a US citizen for assassination. In the first instance, the target is a location (e.g. terrorist training camp, bio-weapons development facility, enemy headquarters, etc.) and all persons located there run the risk of being blown up by a smart bomb or being taken out by a team of commandos. However, in the second case, the President or other government official would have to deliberately bypass the Constitution and essentially commit murder. Sorry, but that just doesn't happen no matter what you see in the movies.

Makes for great conspiracy theories. Makes for even better action movies, especially with Jason Statham, Jet Li, Clive Owen or other similar action star in it. But it does not happen in the real world.

I'm surprised that Kucinich would swallow the bait into believing that there needs to be a bill introduced in Congress when he should call for an investigation to determine if it's happening at all. If it is, there are already laws in place to press criminal charges against those involved.

It is happening toome and it is not a movie. From what I gather, he is heading a recruiting op overseas. It is that position, heading the recruiting op, that marks him as a valid military target and his nationality is not the point or even a factor in that regard.