Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[bigrebnc1775]

The detainees I question the guilt of are the ones simply rounded up with no intelligence that they were terrorists.

That is not the case with Al-Awaki.

They were picked up on the battlefield or helping our enemy, so why the change?

They weren't all picked up on the battlefield. Some of them were just bystanders.

There is no change in my opinion.

Neither was Al-Awaki killed on the battlefield.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no fucking idea what they did with Nazis in BA during the war.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine. I was trying to understand your viewpoint.

The point is that the law actually prevents countries from fighting in neutral territory. Nazis and US Army forces were both in Argentina, and even went to the same parties during the war.

How does that answer the question I asked you? Oh, right....it doesn't.

You asked if we could kill Nazi generals in WWII. I pointed out that doing so in neutral countries is actually a violation of international law. Since then you have been confused and trying to act like I do not know what I am talking about. I am actually impressed, you usually just drift away when you do something stupid.

Care to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, Civil Liberties are top priority for us, the American citizen, it has nothing to do with the ‘terrorists’ per se. Just as with the president, ‘terrorists’ don’t have a say as to their legal status, they don’t get to ‘declare’ anything.

Jones great to stand up for a persons right, but obama and any other president has the authority to kill any American citizen he wants to without desecration. If he feels the person is a threat he can have them wacked at anytime he see's fit. And most American like germans of 1934 cheered.

It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!


Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...

So they tell me. I say they are lying. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[Valerie]

Jones great to stand up for a persons right, but obama and any other president has the authority to kill any American citizen he wants to without desecration. If he feels the person is a threat he can have them wacked at anytime he see's fit. And most American like germans of 1934 cheered.

It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!


Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...

So they tell me. I say they are lying. Can you prove me wrong?

Can you prove they are...? On what basis do you claim it is not true that Awlaki was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant who was legally targeted and killed...?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Legal remedies do not do much good for the fact that we just broke the Constitution, do they? Not to mention the guy you just wiped off the planet because you did not like his politics.

Yes, QW. This was purely a political "hit".

It had nothing to do with his involvement in AQ.

Since it was purely political in motive, that means anyone, anyone could be next!

This is where you guys start to spin in orbit.

This guy went from being a guy who made videos to the operational head of AQAP in two or three years without once actually doing anything. Sorry if I find that a stretch, but I do.

Then again, I find the idea that Kirk went from a cadet on probation to Captain of the Enterprise a stretch too. Maybe I should watch more movies with stupid plot devices, I might find them more credible in real life.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

No, you don't indict members of AQ. Even if they are Americans. Enemies are enemies.

Don't know if you're my enemy Ravi.. Prove you have no connections to Al Queada.
Ever been in the same building with "known Al Queada" contacts? Do you have "bomb-making materials" in your compound or garage" ??? That would include pipe, fertilizer, batteries, duct tape, timers, ect? Ever visited websites frequented by AQ radicals? Donated to any Mid East "charities"?

I'll hold off the missile strike til 23:00 GMT -- and don't leave your present coordinates...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, Civil Liberties are top priority for us, the American citizen, it has nothing to do with the ‘terrorists’ per se. Just as with the president, ‘terrorists’ don’t have a say as to their legal status, they don’t get to ‘declare’ anything.

Jones great to stand up for a persons right, but obama and any other president has the authority to kill any American citizen he wants to without desecration. If he feels the person is a threat he can have them wacked at anytime he see's fit. And most American like germans of 1934 cheered.

It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!


Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...

OH so now we have reliable intell. Did you think we had reliable intell when the same people said Iraq had WMD's?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

So, theoretically;

Way back in 2004, if my platoon had eyes on an enemy position where they were eating, sleeping, and planning; I shouldn't be able to call in artillery on them.

You would have me stir them up first and then have to maneuver against them? We now have to give up the element of surprise for your delicate sensibilities?

That's absurd. As much as some people bitch about the ROE, even the ROE is not that restrictive.

When you have eyes on a known enemy, you don't have wait for them to get ready before you start dropping rounds on them.

You trying to parse English with a writer?

Those enemies were actively engaged in fighting. Awlaki was actively engaged in making videos.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!


Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...

So they tell me. I say they are lying. Can you prove me wrong?

Can you prove they are...? On what basis do you claim it is not true that Awlaki was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant who was legally targeted and killed...?

No Valerie -- not how this thing works. See it's YOU that SHOULD be able to SHOW US that he was with substantial certainty an involved member of that organization.. All you got is that he a "spiritual advisor" and an acquaintance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So they tell me. I say they are lying. Can you prove me wrong?

Can you prove they are...? On what basis do you claim it is not true that Awlaki was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant who was legally targeted and killed...?

No Valerie -- not how this thing works. See it's YOU that SHOULD be able to SHOW US that he was with substantial certainty an involved member of that organization.. All you got is that he a "spiritual advisor" and an acquaintance.

Just like when obama and bill ayres were on the same board Ayres was just an acquaintance of obama.

 

[Valerie]

So they tell me. I say they are lying. Can you prove me wrong?

Can you prove they are...? On what basis do you claim it is not true that Awlaki was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant who was legally targeted and killed...?

No Valerie -- not how this thing works. See it's YOU that SHOULD be able to SHOW US that he was with substantial certainty an involved member of that organization.. All you got is that he a "spiritual advisor" and an acquaintance.

Oh please, you guys need to get a grip and stop injecting your egos into this stuff as if it's about what I can or can not prove..AS IF some gotcha clip from a post is going to change ANY of the relevant facts involved... I have been posting diligently on this topic since Friday so go check my posts if you're really interested, but again, I don't delude myself into thinking my posts matter one way or the other in regards to the legality of the US mission against AQ terrorists.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can you prove they are...? On what basis do you claim it is not true that Awlaki was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant who was legally targeted and killed...?

No Valerie -- not how this thing works. See it's YOU that SHOULD be able to SHOW US that he was with substantial certainty an involved member of that organization.. All you got is that he a "spiritual advisor" and an acquaintance.

Oh please, you guys need to get a grip and stop injecting your egos into this stuff as if it's about what I can or can not prove..AS IF some gotcha clip from a post is going to change ANY of the relevant facts involved... I have been posting diligently on this topic since Friday so go check my posts if you're really interested, but again, I don't delude myself into thinking my posts matter one way or the other in regards to the legality of the US mission against AQ terrorists.

No what were doing is showing you how partisan some peoiple are. What was bad 3 years ago is now acceptable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can you prove they are...? On what basis do you claim it is not true that Awlaki was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant who was legally targeted and killed...?

No Valerie -- not how this thing works. See it's YOU that SHOULD be able to SHOW US that he was with substantial certainty an involved member of that organization.. All you got is that he a "spiritual advisor" and an acquaintance.

Oh please, you guys need to get a grip and stop injecting your egos into this stuff as if it's about what I can or can not prove..AS IF some gotcha clip from a post is going to change ANY of the relevant facts involved... I have been posting diligently on this topic since Friday so go check my posts if you're really interested, but again, I don't delude myself into thinking my posts matter one way or the other in regards to the legality of the US mission against AQ terrorists.

Its simpler than that Valerie.. My comment meant that ALL US legal precedent is based on "innocent until proven guilty" -- Something we expect you to understand and not ask for "proof of innocence". Which is why I also asked Ravi to "prove her innocence" as a satirical method. (Tho the missile strike on her is still pending..)

Not to mention that use of a combined CIA/DOD strike against a US citizen with no history of violence and a relatively recent request to SPEAK AT A PENTAGON LUNCHEON -- OUGHT to be easily defended and publically justified. Shouldn't it?

Or are the masters in charge of this operation just too inept and embarrassed by their past handling of this Awlaki matter to comment?

 

[Ravi]

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

Here, answer the question this time instead of going to South America.

 

[Ravi]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

No, you don't indict members of AQ. Even if they are Americans. Enemies are enemies.

Don't know if you're my enemy Ravi.. Prove you have no connections to Al Queada.
Ever been in the same building with "known Al Queada" contacts? Do you have "bomb-making materials" in your compound or garage" ??? That would include pipe, fertilizer, batteries, duct tape, timers, ect? Ever visited websites frequented by AQ radicals? Donated to any Mid East "charities"?

I'll hold off the missile strike til 23:00 GMT -- and don't leave your present coordinates...

Awesome, now you've started babbling nonsense.

Ta ta, loser.

 

[Xchel]

Nazi military generals were not US citizens and they were actual soldiers in a declared war...called WWII. They were on an actual battlefield.....we didn't send a scud missle into Canada to take one of those German refugees out in our effort because after all he was German so he must have been a nazi....which is the equivelent of what we did here.

 

[Valerie]

No Valerie -- not how this thing works. See it's YOU that SHOULD be able to SHOW US that he was with substantial certainty an involved member of that organization.. All you got is that he a "spiritual advisor" and an acquaintance.

Oh please, you guys need to get a grip and stop injecting your egos into this stuff as if it's about what I can or can not prove..AS IF some gotcha clip from a post is going to change ANY of the relevant facts involved... I have been posting diligently on this topic since Friday so go check my posts if you're really interested, but again, I don't delude myself into thinking my posts matter one way or the other in regards to the legality of the US mission against AQ terrorists.

Its simpler than that Valerie.. My comment meant that ALL US legal precedent is based on "innocent until proven guilty" -- Something we expect you to understand and not ask for "proof of innocence". Which is why I also asked Ravi to "prove her innocence" as a satirical method. (Tho the missile strike on her is still pending..)

Not to mention that use of a combined CIA/DOD strike against a US citizen with no history of violence and a relatively recent request to SPEAK AT A PENTAGON LUNCHEON -- OUGHT to be easily defended and publically justified. Shouldn't it?

Or are the masters in charge of this operation just too inept and embarrassed by their past handling of this Awlaki matter to comment?

No, as has been ALREADY posted over and over in several threads on this board, the President in FACT had the legal authority to target Awlaki. You and others may have an understandable and legitimate concern with that authority, but nothing I could possibly post is going to change anything one iota... The law as it stands did not require a warrant in this case, no matter what ANYone posts here. People are running around the internet claiming American citizens are no longer afforded due process and that Obama is going to send rocket launchers into LA. It's a bunch of hysterical bullshit.

 

[Ravi]

Nazi military generals were not US citizens and they were actual soldiers in a declared war...called WWII. They were on an actual battlefield.....we didn't send a scud missle into Canada to take one of those German refugees out in our effort because after all he was German so he must have been a nazi....which is the equivelent of what we did here.

Uh, no. He got taken out because he was a terrorist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nazi military generals were not US citizens and they were actual soldiers in a declared war...called WWII. They were on an actual battlefield.....we didn't send a scud missle into Canada to take one of those German refugees out in our effort because after all he was German so he must have been a nazi....which is the equivelent of what we did here.

Uh, no. He got taken out because he was a terrorist.

Really?

That is good news. Just another nail in the coffin for Bush. Apparently he's got no real evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists.

3 years a go not a terrorist now they're all terrorist

 

[Ravi]

Nazi military generals were not US citizens and they were actual soldiers in a declared war...called WWII. They were on an actual battlefield.....we didn't send a scud missle into Canada to take one of those German refugees out in our effort because after all he was German so he must have been a nazi....which is the equivelent of what we did here.

Uh, no. He got taken out because he was a terrorist.

Really?

That is good news. Just another nail in the coffin for Bush. Apparently he's got no real evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists.

3 years a go not a terrorist now they're all terrorist

Is stupidity a congenital disability in your case?