President Obama defends "targeted killing" in Terrorism fight

[Kalam]

Oh don't kid yourself. (You don't fool any of us.)

You most certainly do have ilk.

Really? Who else believes that the US shouldn't be involved in the affairs of the Muslim world at all, much less deciding whether to capture or kill some estranged pulpiter for being a big meanie and talking bad about them?

Rest assured, I don't care enough about this discussion or its participants to put any effort into trying to "fool" you, nor would I stand to gain anything from doing so.

And, you spent a few seconds pointing something out that was never in question in the first place. Good job!

You seemed unaware of that little tidbit. I assumed that's why you attempted to make such a silly comparison.

Then the Muslim world may cease imposing their will on others...through their proclaimed Jhihad on the Infidel?

Sharia Law?

Do me a solid and remind me which Western country has recently been occupied by a Muslim army and had a Shari'i system of government established against its will.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Rest assured, I don't care enough about this discussion or its participants to put any effort into trying to "fool" you, nor would I stand to gain anything from doing so.
* * * *

Then it's kinda odd that you keep posting in this thread.

And you denied having ilk, so you already tried to fool us.

But, if you insist, we can all pretend: you are officially deemed ilkless.

 

[The T]

Really? Who else believes that the US shouldn't be involved in the affairs of the Muslim world at all, much less deciding whether to capture or kill some estranged pulpiter for being a big meanie and talking bad about them?

Rest assured, I don't care enough about this discussion or its participants to put any effort into trying to "fool" you, nor would I stand to gain anything from doing so.



You seemed unaware of that little tidbit. I assumed that's why you attempted to make such a silly comparison.

Then the Muslim world may cease imposing their will on others...through their proclaimed Jhihad on the Infidel?

Sharia Law?

Do me a solid and remind me which Western country has recently been occupied by a Muslim army and had a Shari'i system of government established against its will.

You mean which ones have been infiltrated? Attacked?

Sorry. If you're looking for a sympathetic ear? I remain deaf.

 

[Kalam]

* * * *
Rest assured, I don't care enough about this discussion or its participants to put any effort into trying to "fool" you, nor would I stand to gain anything from doing so.
* * * *

Then it's kinda odd that you keep posting in this thread.

And you denied having ilk, so you already tried to fool us.

Whatever you say, pal. Good thing someone like you was around to catch me.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Rest assured, I don't care enough about this discussion or its participants to put any effort into trying to "fool" you, nor would I stand to gain anything from doing so.
* * * *

Then it's kinda odd that you keep posting in this thread.

And you denied having ilk, so you already tried to fool us.

Whatever you say, pal. Good thing someone like you was around to catch me.

No problem. I was here anyway. And you are still posting in a thread that is of no interest to you.



Yeah. You're persuasive.

 

[Kalam]

Then the Muslim world may cease imposing their will on others...through their proclaimed Jhihad on the Infidel?

Sharia Law?

Do me a solid and remind me which Western country has recently been occupied by a Muslim army and had a Shari'i system of government established against its will.

You mean which ones have been infiltrated? Attacked?

No, I mean any Western nation that we have subjected to anything approaching the extreme degree of interference, strife, and violence inflicted on the Muslim nations by the West over the past century. It may have sucked, but 3,000 people is chump change compared to what has been done over there.

Sorry. If you're looking for a sympathetic ear? I remain deaf.

Your sympathy isn't required.

 

[QUENTIN]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If someone wants to try that demon in a MILITARY court, fine. So you're 1 of those wacko pussies who wants U.S. civilian rights for terrorists?

Not cool.

By "wacko *****" of course you mean "Constitutionalist." By your definition, only people who have no respect for the Constitution and rule of law aren't "wacko pussies."

Beyond the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution's clear assertion that "No person ...shall be be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," there is a law explicitly banning assassination.

Executive Order 12333, Signed by President Ronald Reagan, December 4, 1981

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

You're the one stating as fact that the policy is indiscriminate bombing.... show your undeniable proof, or shut the **** up

I know of no policy that states this as fact, no matter if it were during Bush's terms or Obama's.... and there is no evidence that this is practice outside of the executive orders of the CIC

What you're looking for would never exist and you know it because policies aren't written to say "what we are doing is indiscriminate" anymore than new laws introduced state as fact "this is totally unconstitutional."

Judgments, of which "indiscriminate" is one, are not purely objective and not found in the written letter of the law but in interpretation. However, the results of the policy, far more significant a metric to judge than the wording, demonstrate that bombing is indiscriminate by any reasonable standard.

in·dis·crim·i·nate
   /ˌɪndɪˈskrɪmənɪt/ Show Spelled[in-di-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA
–adjective
1. not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc.: indiscriminate in one's friendships.
2. not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter.
3. not kept apart or divided; thrown together; jumbled: an indiscriminate combination of colors and styles.

dis·crim·i·nate
   /v. dɪˈskrɪməˌneɪt; adj. dɪˈskrɪmənɪt/ Show Spelled [v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. dih-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing, adjective –verb (used with object)
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.
4. to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.

Pakistani intelligence officials quoted in the English-language The News International found that cross-border drone strikes in Pakistan had killed nearly 50 civilians for every targeted alleged terrorist. "From January 14, 2006 to April 8, 2009, 60 U.S. strikes against Pakistan killed 701 people, of which 14 were Al-Qaeda militants and 687 innocent civilians."

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

That source is quite reasonable to question given what we know about Pakistani intelligence and various human rights organizations have put the number closer to 20-30:1.

According to the much more conservative estimate published as a result of a study by the Brookings Institute, more than 10 civilians are killed for every targeted alleged terrorist in the drone strikes in Pakistan.

Do Targeted Killings Work? - Brookings Institution

This is all taking place in a country we are not at war with, mind. It's also before 2010 when Obama massively escalated drone strikes which have killed substantially more people this year than any year prior. which have Even going by conservative estimates, or even if the ratio was merely 1:1, that is by definition "indiscriminate" as it does not distinguish target from civilian.

Let's say, simply for the sake of this discussion, that there exists some U.S. citizen (maybe even natural born) who becomes enamored of the religion of Islam. Let's call him Jihad Jimmy.

He studies Islam. He goes in rather deeply. He learns the language. Studies it. Studies under Imams. Gets involved with some of the more whacked out jihadist extremists. He becomes a jihadist himself. He literally joins up with al qaeda. He trains with them. He joins a "cell" here in the United States. (As we learned from what happened in Tonawanda, NY, outside of Buffalo, they do exist.) He recruits others. He plots and plans and conspires to perform jihad. Suicide bombing isn't enough for him. He wants the full martyrdom glory (all for Allah, of course).

So his planned spectacular is to poison a major metropolis' water supply. But he is very adept at what he does. Just like we have difficulty even finding Osama bin Laden, so too we have major difficulty finding our boy Jihad Jimmy. But our intel uncovers that he is mere days (maybe hours?) away from pulling off his "spectacular."

We further derive information that he will be at one of the main reservoirs supplying New York City with its water. The poison he has acquired will suffice to kill hundreds of thousands of those who drink from that water supply, maybe even millions.

Should the President order the FBI to see if, maybe, they can find him and arrest him? Or -- given the risk that his action is so dangerously imminent -- should the President authorize his immediate assassination, upon sight, so that, hopefully, he can be stopped and his "supplies" retrieved BEFORE he or others can use them to kill our civilians?

I'm suggesting that there may be a scenario where attempting to arrest the terrorist COULD provide him with just enough time to do his deed. Should we nevertheless say, "This is a criminal law matter! We can't "sanction" old Jihad Jihad. We must arrest him and provide him with all manner of due process!"

Not even 24 had scenarios this retardedly unrealistic. When your argument depends on absurd hypotheticals that have never happened rather than anything based in reality, it demonstrates just how weak the argument truly is.

 

[Kalam]

You're the one stating as fact that the policy is indiscriminate bombing.... show your undeniable proof, or shut the **** up

I know of no policy that states this as fact, no matter if it were during Bush's terms or Obama's.... and there is no evidence that this is practice outside of the executive orders of the CIC

Missed this. The assumption is that the killings are indiscriminate until the US offers proof to the contrary:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) — The United States must demonstrate that it is not randomly killing people in violation of international law through its use of drones on the Afghan border, a United Nations rights investigator said Tuesday.

The investigator, Philip Alston, also said the American refusal to respond to United Nations concerns that the use of drones might result in illegal executions was an “untenable” position.

Mr. Alston, who is appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, said his concern over drones had grown in the past few months as the American military prominently used them in the rugged area along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He said the United States may be using the drones legally but needed to answer questions he raised in June. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/28nations.html​

The fact that many or most of the people being killed are civilians doesn't help their case. I'm not sure why you're getting so pissed over this; nearly every powerful government currently in existence commits these kinds of atrocities. Pakistani airstrikes within their own country are supposed to be even worse.

 

[bag]

Not only did the Obama Administration DEFEND the idea of a targeted killing of a terrorist cleric who has never been "tried" for anything, but --

in the first big round of Judicial review of that policy, the Obama Administration just WON in Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki's father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.

Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans. He also has been linked to last year's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas. He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans.

Administration officials have confirmed to The Associated Press that al-Awlaki is on a capture or kill list, although the Obama administration declined to confirm or deny it in court proceedings.

The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him. The suit also tried to force the government to disclose standards for determining whether U.S. citizens like his son, born in New Mexico, can be targeted for death.

Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president as he makes military decisions to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

* * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...P-US-Cleric-Lawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

you'd be rolling in your own feces if that were bush.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what I thought.

The huge distinction we are drawing is whether or not killing JUST a U.S. citizen for waging war (or trying to) against all of the rest of us is "wrong." Killing some other person isn't morally offensive in the slightest. After all, killing an enemy combatant in war is perfectly justifiable -- unless that enemy combatant was born in the territorial limits of the United States. In the latter case, it stops being morally justifiable and crosses the line into something "wrong."

Are you kidding me, folks? The life and the "rights" of an enemy combatant attempting to wage war on us is a thing of precious value based on his citizenship?

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

But do we all subscribe to this notion?

If the guy is on a battlefield and he gets shot, tough shit. If, on the other hand, he is sitting in a house eating supper, that is murder.

Then if he's eating supper? He's caught and put up before a military tribunal for waging war...and if found guilty by that tribunal? Justice is carried out.

No?

I would think so, though it might make more sense to try him for treason in civilian court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what I thought.

The huge distinction we are drawing is whether or not killing JUST a U.S. citizen for waging war (or trying to) against all of the rest of us is "wrong." Killing some other person isn't morally offensive in the slightest. After all, killing an enemy combatant in war is perfectly justifiable -- unless that enemy combatant was born in the territorial limits of the United States. In the latter case, it stops being morally justifiable and crosses the line into something "wrong."

Are you kidding me, folks? The life and the "rights" of an enemy combatant attempting to wage war on us is a thing of precious value based on his citizenship?

Hearing this from Kalam and his ilk does not surprise me.

But do we all subscribe to this notion?

If the guy is on a battlefield and he gets shot, tough shit. If, on the other hand, he is sitting in a house eating supper, that is murder.

If Osama is on a battlefield (what part of the world is no longer a battlefield?) he is obviously gonna get shot.

But if he's caught in his three bedroom cave in the Mountains of Southern Jihadistan, eating his camel jerky for supper, then we can't just take his ass out?

Why not?

Because it is murder, and we, as a country, are better than that.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The more I think about this, the more disturbed I become by it.

We now have a precedence set that the President of the United States of America can assasinate a citizen w/o due process.

Is it ok b/c the guys an asshole that connected to terrorism?

Granted, I think this guy is guilty and needs to be fertilizer, but it is simply wrong to kill assasinate a citizen.

Do we start hunting down non-citizens? How about citizness that might be problems, b/c they fit some profile.

No, this is wrong, and is against the Constitution for a reason.

America is the "Beakon of Light" that so many followed to our shores to get away from crap like this.

Does it matter to you that this guy has gone literally to the dark side in mind, spirit, and body? The guy doesn't reside here any longer.

The most ruthless evil American on the planet gets a fair trial.

Our Constitution and laws mean something 24/7/365/eternity, or they don't mean jackshit.

Imagine that this guy may be nothing but a front man puppet. We kill him, the person pulling his strings moves onto another American. That we kill, then another and another.

Pick him up, try him, if guilty, then execute.

If we are going to kill people that we don't like, lets start with the Afganni Pres, that guy is guilty of all sorts of crap.

 

[Immanuel]

AS LONG as they're obvious, confirmed terrorists like that one, kudos to Obama, for once.

Who determines the definition of obvious here?

I have to disagree with other conservatives here. I do not extend kudos to the President on this one. The President ordering the assassination of a Muslim terrorist who happens to be an American citizen without a trial? What's next? Declaring a very strong political candidate to be an enemy of the state and then "targeting" him/her for elimination?

Did we just burn the Constitution or flush it down the toilet?

Immie

 

[QUENTIN]

AS LONG as they're obvious, confirmed terrorists like that one, kudos to Obama, for once.

Who determines the definition of obvious here?

I have to disagree with other conservatives here. I do not extend kudos to the President on this one. The President ordering the assassination of a Muslim terrorist who happens to be an American citizen without a trial? What's next? Declaring a very strong political candidate to be an enemy of the state and then "targeting" him/her for elimination?

Did we just burn the Constitution or flush it down the toilet?

Immie

Of particular note for the "obvious" classification is that Al-Awlaki not only hasn't received a trial, indictment, or conviction necessary to impose the death penalty, he hasn't even been charged with anything.

All that is substantiated and proven available to the public is that he's engaged in speech advocating for attacks against Americans which, absolutely despicable as they are, are designated as protected speech. Hate groups and wannabe revolutionaries have been tried for similar calls to violence and the Supreme Court has found and upheld that it falls under free speech laws and advocacy alone is not criminal .

The only basis for the assertion that Al-Awlaki has moved on from mere advocacy to actual participation in terrorist plots is government claims to the press, almost always anonymous, which have been shown over the last 10 years to be inaccurate far more often than accurate (of all Gitmo detainees asserted to be terrorists for instance, more than 70% were found not to be and released upon even minimal judicial or military review).

Al-Awlaki may or may not be engaged in terrorism, but until it's proven in court or he's found on a battlefield, it is illegal to kill him and nothing more or less than assassination which is strictly prohibited.

The distinction between camps here is ultimately a very simple one: those who believe in the rule of law and those who don't.

Obviously, the broader implications of discarding the rule of law are far more consequential than just this case so people shouldn't be so quick to jump to a convenient but illegal solution without considering the ramifications. Do we really want to actively support the idea that the law shouldn't constrain government behavior? The danger from that is far worse than what any one alleged or real terrorist can do.

 

[Liability]

If the guy is on a battlefield and he gets shot, tough shit. If, on the other hand, he is sitting in a house eating supper, that is murder.

If Osama is on a battlefield (what part of the world is no longer a battlefield?) he is obviously gonna get shot.

But if he's caught in his three bedroom cave in the Mountains of Southern Jihadistan, eating his camel jerky for supper, then we can't just take his ass out?

Why not?

Because it is murder, and we, as a country, are better than that.

No. It's not "murder." Killing the head of an enemy nation or an enemy organization which happens to be at war with us is not "murder."

According to your definition, if we had issued a "hit" on Adolf Hitler himself during WWII, that would constitute "murder."

But that's not the way it works. That's not what it's called. Murder, by definition is the WRONGFUL taking of human life. There's nothing wrongful in that sense in killing this the enemy in time of war.

 

[Liability]

Not only did the Obama Administration DEFEND the idea of a targeted killing of a terrorist cleric who has never been "tried" for anything, but --

in the first big round of Judicial review of that policy, the Obama Administration just WON in Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki's father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.

Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans. He also has been linked to last year's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas. He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans.

Administration officials have confirmed to The Associated Press that al-Awlaki is on a capture or kill list, although the Obama administration declined to confirm or deny it in court proceedings.

The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him. The suit also tried to force the government to disclose standards for determining whether U.S. citizens like his son, born in New Mexico, can be targeted for death.

Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president as he makes military decisions to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

* * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...P-US-Cleric-Lawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

you'd be rolling in your own feces if that were bush.

Bag, you stupid ass, you are actually quite unimpressive except as an example of severe retardation.

President Bush would get the same kudos from me as I just offered to President Obama.

But, I leave rolling in shit to pigs like you.

 

[Immanuel]

As someone who seems to be perpetually opposed to anything our leaders in Washington are doing for the last 6 years or so, I find myself somewhat fearful of the power this gives the most powerful man in the free world.

Immie

 

[Liability]

As someone who seems to be perpetually opposed to anything our leaders in Washington are doing for the last 6 years or so, I find myself somewhat fearful of the power this gives the most powerful man in the free world.

Immie

If you believe (I don't, just to be clear) that this is some new "power" or claimed authority, I believe you are naive.

In point of fact, I suspect that it's not just many of our past Presidents who have done this kind of thing, but the leaders of other nations do it and have done it, too.

It seems to me that the only difference in the last two Administrations is that somehow it seems to have become fodder for litigation.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that we have sanctioned enemies in the past. There is even that story about how President Clinton had Osama bin Laden virtually speaking "in the cross-hairs" but wouldn't "pull the trigger." I seriously doubt that was the first time any President got the call to "make the call" on whether to take out an enemy leader. The power or authority has been presumed to flow from the President's position as the Commander in Chief.

What is less explainable is how any of this is subject to a judicial branch imprimatur.

Here is an interesting look at the topic from 2006. Targeted Killings - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[Immanuel]

As someone who seems to be perpetually opposed to anything our leaders in Washington are doing for the last 6 years or so, I find myself somewhat fearful of the power this gives the most powerful man in the free world.

Immie

If you believe (I don't, just to be clear) that this is some new "power" or claimed authority, I believe you are naive.

In point of fact, I suspect that it's not just many of our past Presidents who have done this kind of thing, but the leaders of other nations do it and have done it, too.

It seems to me that the only difference in the last two Administrations is that somehow it seems to have become fodder for litigation.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that we have sanctioned enemies in the past. There is even that story about how President Clinton had Osama bin Laden virtually speaking "in the cross-hairs" but wouldn't "pull the trigger." I seriously doubt that was the first time any President got the call to "make the call" on whether to take out an enemy leader. The power or authority has been presumed to flow from the President's position as the Commander in Chief.

What is less explainable is how any of this is subject to a judicial branch imprimatur.

Here is an interesting look at the topic from 2006. Targeted Killings - Council on Foreign Relations

Believing/knowing that it goes on and supporting it are two very different things.

BTW Thanks for the link. I didn't read all of it, but I did scan it and found it helpful.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do I agree that the US should assassinate enemy leaders? No.

Am I surprised? No.

This would be far from the first time.