This country is seriously fucked

[Polk]

Strawman. The only two alternatives are not assassination and letting someone go.

How about apprehending U.S. citizens who are suspected of terrorism and trying them in a military court? We'd need to change the law to create a definition for terrorists as being engaged in war activities, but that should have been done long ago.

Agreed on part one. I think we'd all be okay with shooting a guy with his finger on the button, so to speak.

As for the other part, I don't see why we need special tribunals. Makes far more sense from my perspective to try them in regular court.

 

[boedicca]

I disagree with that. We do need legal clarity and distinction between U.S. citizens who are acting as agents of foreign terrorists (who are in a de facto war with the U.S.) and domestic criminals. This lack of distinction has enabled the damage to our civil liberties since 2001.

 

[Samson]

I'm a "leftist", and I don't believes the President should have the power to kill American citizens without due process.

Nor do I know what the **** Nidal Hassan has to do with anything.

I'm more of a "rightist" and believe the President should have the power to kill anyone who threatens the lives of others without due process.

Police do it every day. They do not just kill ANYONE with impunity, and when they cannot prove just cause, they are prosecuted. Why shouldn't they president have the same authority?

Should we wait for a nuclear device to explode in Manhattan, then ask, "Hey, Mr. President, WFT? Did you know about this?"

Mr. President: "Yeah, we had the guys in the cross-hairs, and could have easily prevented the holocaust, but, you know, so many people on USMB thought I shouldn't have the power to kill an American, so we just let the guy go."

Imminent danger is a pretty significant different.

Imminent danger?

Opposed to only 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?


How about we take a revolver, only fill half the cylinders with shells, hold it against some kid's head? Where does that fall into your tidy little definition of "imminent?" What if we just use a toy gun half the time? Not so ******* easy to define "imminent" now, is it?


You people need to get the **** over your trust issues: You elect a President to protect the country. Let him do his freakin' job, regardless of your absurd partisan associations. You elect a Senate to impeach the President if he's abusing power. Let them do their jobs.

 

[Polk]

I disagree with that. We do need legal clarity and distinction between U.S. citizens who are acting as agents of foreign terrorists (who are in a de facto war with the U.S.) and domestic criminals. This lack of distinction has enabled the damage to our civil liberties since 2001.

Terrorist organizations are not state actors. They're criminal enterprises in the same sense the mafia is. We already have existing laws that can deal with these issues.

Absolutely agreed, however, that the issue is harming our liberties.

 

[Samson]

I disagree with that. We do need legal clarity and distinction between U.S. citizens who are acting as agents of foreign terrorists (who are in a de facto war with the U.S.) and domestic criminals. This lack of distinction has enabled the damage to our civil liberties since 2001.

Terrorist organizations are not state actors. They're criminal enterprises in the same sense the mafia is. We already have existing laws that can deal with these issues.

Absolutely agreed, however, that the issue is harming our liberties.

Which liberty?

I don't see bodies of innocent Americans piling up in the streets?






On the other hand there have been some "weddings" in A'stan that seem to have had some unfortunate endings.

 

[Freewill]

I'm a "leftist", and I don't believes the President should have the power to kill American citizens without due process.

Nor do I know what the **** Nidal Hassan has to do with anything.

I'm more of a "rightist" and believe the President should have the power to kill anyone who threatens the lives of others without due process.

Police do it every day. They do not just kill ANYONE with impunity, and when they cannot prove just cause, they are prosecuted. Why shouldn't they president have the same authority?

Should we wait for a nuclear device to explode in Manhattan, then ask, "Hey, Mr. President, WFT? Did you know about this?"

Mr. President: "Yeah, we had the guys in the cross-hairs, and could have easily prevented the holocaust, but, you know, so many people on USMB thought I shouldn't have the power to kill an American, so we just let the guy go."

Of course you raise the stakes to a point where no one could say no. But what happens when a police officer uses his weapon? I may be wrong but I believe he is relieved of duty until a justifiable shooting investigation is conducted. Where is the investigation into the justification of the killing of the `16 year old? I linked to a story about how the CIA and the drones target their kills. It appears they pay 5000 dollars for informants to tag cars with GPS. Apparently there is some question as to if they are targeting the right person or car. How else do you think people are being targeted? Maybe someone has a hard spot for the 16 year old and dropped a GPS device on him and the CIA took him out. What then? How much killing are we going to do using the "terrorist" as the excuse? The CIA's record ain't all that good, in my opinion, to just let them target whomever they so desire. Besides the collateral damage has to be pissing off a whole bunch in the middle east.

 

[Polk]

I'm more of a "rightist" and believe the President should have the power to kill anyone who threatens the lives of others without due process.

Police do it every day. They do not just kill ANYONE with impunity, and when they cannot prove just cause, they are prosecuted. Why shouldn't they president have the same authority?

Should we wait for a nuclear device to explode in Manhattan, then ask, "Hey, Mr. President, WFT? Did you know about this?"

Mr. President: "Yeah, we had the guys in the cross-hairs, and could have easily prevented the holocaust, but, you know, so many people on USMB thought I shouldn't have the power to kill an American, so we just let the guy go."

Imminent danger is a pretty significant different.

Imminent danger?

Opposed to only 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?


How about we take a revolver, only fill half the cylinders with shells, hold it against some kid's head? Where does that fall into your tidy little definition of "imminent?" What if we just use a toy gun half the time? Not so ******* easy to define "imminent" now, is it?


You people need to get the **** over your trust issues: You elect a President to protect the country. Let him do his freakin' job, regardless of your absurd partisan associations. You elect a Senate to impeach the President if he's abusing power. Let them do their jobs.

A murder could occur in anyone's house. Should we install cameras in all homes to monitor people? If not, why not?

 

[Polk]

I disagree with that. We do need legal clarity and distinction between U.S. citizens who are acting as agents of foreign terrorists (who are in a de facto war with the U.S.) and domestic criminals. This lack of distinction has enabled the damage to our civil liberties since 2001.

Terrorist organizations are not state actors. They're criminal enterprises in the same sense the mafia is. We already have existing laws that can deal with these issues.

Absolutely agreed, however, that the issue is harming our liberties.

Which liberty?

I don't see bodies of innocent Americans piling up in the streets?






On the other hand there have been some "weddings" in A'stan that seem to have had some unfortunate endings.

Our ability to travel has been restricted by the state of unending war (compliance with all the various TSA regs, having to go through pointless security screening at the airport). Our ability to communication freely (the government is monitoring significant volumes of web traffic and telephone communications). Just to name a few.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We were talking about people who have been consistent of the issue. Malkin was all in favor of this policy when Bush was implementing it.

Sigh. Bush did not use drones to target Americans, it would have been impossible for anyone to support it under Bush and oppose it under Obama. I am sure I can find plenty of Democrats who opposed the Bush use of drones that fully support Obama's expanded use of drones.

I'm absolutely sure you can find plenty of hypocrites on this issue. Several of them have been active in this thread. The claim that "Bush did not use drones to target Americans" is supposition based on non-disclosure.

Feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong, until you do I will accept the complete lack of any evidence that Bush targeted Americans as evidence in and of itself.

By the way, if Bush had done it, why did Obama feel a need to rationalize it as a policy unique to his administration?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm more of a "rightist" and believe the President should have the power to kill anyone who threatens the lives of others without due process.

Police do it every day. They do not just kill ANYONE with impunity, and when they cannot prove just cause, they are prosecuted. Why shouldn't they president have the same authority?

Should we wait for a nuclear device to explode in Manhattan, then ask, "Hey, Mr. President, WFT? Did you know about this?"

Mr. President: "Yeah, we had the guys in the cross-hairs, and could have easily prevented the holocaust, but, you know, so many people on USMB thought I shouldn't have the power to kill an American, so we just let the guy go."

Imminent danger is a pretty significant different.

Imminent danger?

Opposed to only 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?


How about we take a revolver, only fill half the cylinders with shells, hold it against some kid's head? Where does that fall into your tidy little definition of "imminent?" What if we just use a toy gun half the time? Not so ******* easy to define "imminent" now, is it?


You people need to get the **** over your trust issues: You elect a President to protect the country. Let him do his freakin' job, regardless of your absurd partisan associations. You elect a Senate to impeach the President if he's abusing power. Let them do their jobs.

If you have a gun pointed at a kids head and a cop shoots you, and it later turns out the gun was empty, the cop was still right. On the other hand, if you talk about going out and buying a gun, kidnapping a child, and using him to face down the police, the cop would be wrong to shoot you, and should face charges if he actually does it.

At this point in time Obama is arguing he has the right to kill American citizens in the latter situation if he thinks they are serious. I disagree.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

Why do they agree with that policy? Fear is a great motivator...Scream terrorist and see ppl be "pro" all kinds of shit from Water Boarding to drone strikes.

Why did anyone think that the policy of GWB to proclaim ppl as terrorist therefore they dont need a trial or due process would stay snuggly on the outside of the US border. When GWB was proclaiming ppl as terrorist and the right were claiming they didnt deserve or need a trial....Did they (and everyone else) didnt think that power would be abused?

Silly short sighted "my side vs your side" assholes never imagined a Dem would use (or abuse) that same power handed to them on a silver platter? What is wrong with the attention span of...Oh, American Idol is on brb

 

[Freewill]

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

Why do they agree with that policy? Fear is a great motivator...Scream terrorist and see ppl be "pro" all kinds of shit from Water Boarding to drone strikes.

Why did anyone think that the policy of GWB to proclaim ppl as terrorist therefore they dont need a trial or due process would stay snuggly on the outside of the US border. When GWB was proclaiming ppl as terrorist and the right were claiming they didnt deserve or need a trial....Did they (and everyone else) didnt think that power would be abused?

Silly short sighted "my side vs your side" assholes never imagined a Dem would use (or abuse) that same power handed to them on a silver platter? What is wrong with the attention span of...Oh, American Idol is on brb

Whenever something bad happens like 9/11 it is natural for humans to overreact. Certainly the pendulum has swung way too far already. If nothing else when Obama was running for office one would think he would bring the pendulum back towards the center but exactly the opposite has happened. Obama is killing with predators in a manner Bush never did.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Sigh. Bush did not use drones to target Americans, it would have been impossible for anyone to support it under Bush and oppose it under Obama. I am sure I can find plenty of Democrats who opposed the Bush use of drones that fully support Obama's expanded use of drones.

I'm absolutely sure you can find plenty of hypocrites on this issue. Several of them have been active in this thread. The claim that "Bush did not use drones to target Americans" is supposition based on non-disclosure.

Feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong, until you do I will accept the complete lack of any evidence that Bush targeted Americans as evidence in and of itself.

By the way, if Bush had done it, why did Obama feel a need to rationalize it as a policy unique to his administration?

Just more blame bush syndrome.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

Why do they agree with that policy? Fear is a great motivator...Scream terrorist and see ppl be "pro" all kinds of shit from Water Boarding to drone strikes.

Why did anyone think that the policy of GWB to proclaim ppl as terrorist therefore they dont need a trial or due process would stay snuggly on the outside of the US border. When GWB was proclaiming ppl as terrorist and the right were claiming they didnt deserve or need a trial....Did they (and everyone else) didnt think that power would be abused?

Silly short sighted "my side vs your side" assholes never imagined a Dem would use (or abuse) that same power handed to them on a silver platter? What is wrong with the attention span of...Oh, American Idol is on brb

Whenever something bad happens like 9/11 it is natural for humans to overreact. Certainly the pendulum has swung way too far already. If nothing else when Obama was running for office one would think he would bring the pendulum back towards the center but exactly the opposite has happened. Obama is killing with predators in a manner Bush never did.

You cant unswing the pendulum once it starts. a couple..no plenty of ppl were screaming foul when GWB did it...What is facinating is those same ppl have no problem with Obama doing more than he did. Oh, but dont forget those right winger either...Had no problem with GWB but then Obama continues and expands on their arguements now they act as if they never saw it coming.

Again, ppl overreact...Lose their common sense because of a preceived enemy and allow the powers that be free range to do anything it wants.

Has no one read a dam book? You could see this happening from a mile away.

 

[Dante]

The Unadulterated Whackiness of Kentucky and Senator Rand Paul

First, Kentucky actually elected this imbecile to represent them in the US Senate, a deliberative body.

"We really just want [Obama] to say he won't" attack noncombatants on U.S. soil. Sounds like the next demand will be Obama prove he is really a US citizen.

The transcript of this guy's filibuster is going to be fertile ground for...

During his filibuster, Paul said the fuzziness of such language created a slippery slope that could lead to the targeting of citizens who merely have different opinions about policies than the president.

"You can't be judge, jury and executioner all in one," Paul said.

"No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty of a crime by a court," Paul said. "How can you kill someone without going to a judge, or a jury?"

Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination to lead CIA

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

 

[g5000]

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

Those are very poorly worded questions which leave too much room for the respondent to make assumptions.

You have no idea if the respondent was assuming the terrorist was in the middle of making an attack with lives in imminent danger.

The poll is trash.

 

[Polk]

Sigh. Bush did not use drones to target Americans, it would have been impossible for anyone to support it under Bush and oppose it under Obama. I am sure I can find plenty of Democrats who opposed the Bush use of drones that fully support Obama's expanded use of drones.

I'm absolutely sure you can find plenty of hypocrites on this issue. Several of them have been active in this thread. The claim that "Bush did not use drones to target Americans" is supposition based on non-disclosure.

Feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong, until you do I will accept the complete lack of any evidence that Bush targeted Americans as evidence in and of itself.

By the way, if Bush had done it, why did Obama feel a need to rationalize it as a policy unique to his administration?

The legal reasoning used by the Obama administration here is the same legal reasoning used by the Bush administration to hold American citizens without due process at GITMO.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm absolutely sure you can find plenty of hypocrites on this issue. Several of them have been active in this thread. The claim that "Bush did not use drones to target Americans" is supposition based on non-disclosure.

Feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong, until you do I will accept the complete lack of any evidence that Bush targeted Americans as evidence in and of itself.

By the way, if Bush had done it, why did Obama feel a need to rationalize it as a policy unique to his administration?

The legal reasoning used by the Obama administration here is the same legal reasoning used by the Bush administration to hold American citizens without due process at GITMO.

One problem with that assertion, the courts have clearly ruled that due process applies even at Gitmo, and have actually agreed with the arguments of both Bush and Obama over the detainees who are still there.

 

[Samson]

Imminent danger is a pretty significant different.

Imminent danger?

Opposed to only 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?


How about we take a revolver, only fill half the cylinders with shells, hold it against some kid's head? Where does that fall into your tidy little definition of "imminent?" What if we just use a toy gun half the time? Not so ******* easy to define "imminent" now, is it?


You people need to get the **** over your trust issues: You elect a President to protect the country. Let him do his freakin' job, regardless of your absurd partisan associations. You elect a Senate to impeach the President if he's abusing power. Let them do their jobs.

If you have a gun pointed at a kids head and a cop shoots you, and it later turns out the gun was empty, the cop was still right. On the other hand, if you talk about going out and buying a gun, kidnapping a child, and using him to face down the police, the cop would be wrong to shoot you, and should face charges if he actually does it.

At this point in time Obama is arguing he has the right to kill American citizens in the latter situation if he thinks they are serious. I disagree.

Well, to each his own.

A guy threatens to kidnap MY child, I'm thrilled if a cop shoots him, especially if that's the only choice.

But if you want to wait until the guy actually kidnaps YOUR child, then great, you run with that.

You have amazingly naive expectations if you believe we will always have the luxury of investigating whether threats of violence are promises or not.

 

[Samson]

Imminent danger is a pretty significant different.

Imminent danger?

Opposed to only 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?


How about we take a revolver, only fill half the cylinders with shells, hold it against some kid's head? Where does that fall into your tidy little definition of "imminent?" What if we just use a toy gun half the time? Not so ******* easy to define "imminent" now, is it?


You people need to get the **** over your trust issues: You elect a President to protect the country. Let him do his freakin' job, regardless of your absurd partisan associations. You elect a Senate to impeach the President if he's abusing power. Let them do their jobs.

A murder could occur in anyone's house. Should we install cameras in all homes to monitor people? If not, why not?

What a great thread that would make, in a purely academic forum.

Sadly, the topic is a bit more realistic here, and the question's irrevelence probaly means it will be ignored.