Well I guess Killing Americans with due process is OK

[BlindBoo]

Do you have a search engine?

Yes, and it tells me there was no 16 year old who was targeted for a drone strike.

Oh I see what you are doing, you are believing what the administration fed you and are saying that the 16 year old boy and his cousins were not intentionally murdered it was manslaughter. Ok we'll go with that.

I've called you out for claiming that he was targeted every time I see you do it. I've pointed out to you numerous times that the President is authorized to conduct the campaign against al Qaeda as he sees fit.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If it's approved by Congress of COURSE - Just ask any neocon:

Newsflash for pvsimpleton:

Innocent people died in WWI and in WWII and in the Korean "Conflict" and in the Vietnam "War." And in the Civil War. And in the Revolutionary War. And in the War of 1812. And in every damn war that has ever been.

Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?

The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?

That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.

I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.

I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.

 

[Freewill]

Not a fan at all of drone strikes outside a combat zone. It's an invitation to disaster.
But without a lot more information - like how do we know this guy was "innocent" and what made the administration put him on a "kill list" in the first place?

If the guy was involved with terrorism, no real sympathy.

But there are some good questions - imho - that should be answered.

First of all the 16 year old was not in combat when killed, was never in combat against America and posed no direct threat. THAT should be enough not to be targeted. Speech is not a reason to kill Americans. If we cross that line anything could happen.

When first asked Gibbs said this, can't get much more pathetic:

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

 

[whitehall]

The target of the drone attack was a "terrorist" and his son and his son's friend were collateral damage. Fair enough but who decides on the "terrorist" label and who writes the death warrant? That's what "due-process" is about. If we allow some faceless bureaucrat in the CIA or the "justice" dept to determine what American citizen lives or dies we are in deep doo doo.

 

[BlindBoo]

Are you paying attention at all? It is well known fact that Obama does have a death list provide by the CIA. HE, Obama, picks from that list. HE chose to kill an innocent 16 year old American and his cousins. His excuse according to Gibbs? He had a bad father.

The only requirement we have now is that the CIA says so, do you trust the CIA? Or do you pretty much don't trust them?

Simply not true. Sadly he was killed but he was not the target of the strike was he?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that Obama didn't know that the boy was the target. The drones don't do facial recognition they hit their targets by GPS tracking so someone targeted this 16 year old.

Or he could have been with or near the Jihadist who was targeted.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Not a fan at all of drone strikes outside a combat zone. It's an invitation to disaster.
But without a lot more information - like how do we know this guy was "innocent" and what made the administration put him on a "kill list" in the first place?

If the guy was involved with terrorism, no real sympathy.

But there are some good questions - imho - that should be answered.

First of all the 16 year old was not in combat when killed, was never in combat against America and posed no direct threat. THAT should be enough not to be targeted. Speech is not a reason to kill Americans. If we cross that line anything could happen.

When first asked Gibbs said this, can't get much more pathetic:

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

How do you know that this guy was "never in combat against America and posed no direct threat"????

 

[Freewill]

Newsflash for pvsimpleton:

Innocent people died in WWI and in WWII and in the Korean "Conflict" and in the Vietnam "War." And in the Civil War. And in the Revolutionary War. And in the War of 1812. And in every damn war that has ever been.

Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?

The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?

That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.

I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.

I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.

The truth is that Japan was finished we didn't have to invade or drop the bomb. But I don't condemn Truman because at the time the Japanese were looked upon as nothing more then animals. We should fess up to what dropping the bomb(s) and the fire bombing of Dresden really were, acts of terror. Up until WW2 modern warfare avoided civilian targets, the allies changed all of that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?

The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?

That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.

I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.

I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.

The truth is that Japan was finished we didn't have to invade or drop the bomb. But I don't condemn Truman because at the time the Japanese were looked upon as nothing more then animals. We should fess up to what dropping the bomb(s) and the fire bombing of Dresden really were, acts of terror. Up until WW2 modern warfare avoided civilian targets, the allies changed all of that.

Yeah, cause the blitz never harmed any civilians .....
and someone forgot to tell the Japanese they were finished.

 

[Freewill]

Not a fan at all of drone strikes outside a combat zone. It's an invitation to disaster.
But without a lot more information - like how do we know this guy was "innocent" and what made the administration put him on a "kill list" in the first place?

If the guy was involved with terrorism, no real sympathy.

But there are some good questions - imho - that should be answered.

First of all the 16 year old was not in combat when killed, was never in combat against America and posed no direct threat. THAT should be enough not to be targeted. Speech is not a reason to kill Americans. If we cross that line anything could happen.

When first asked Gibbs said this, can't get much more pathetic:

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

How do you know that this guy was "never in combat against America and posed no direct threat"????

All evidence is all I have. Unless you have some evidence he was. A direct threat means what? Direct threat means, to me, in actual direct combat. Kind of like if a person threatens you with a gun and you shoot them they were a direct threat. Verses someone you perceive as a threat and killing them.

What would you think if Russia did such a thing?

 

[Freewill]

That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.

I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.

I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.

The truth is that Japan was finished we didn't have to invade or drop the bomb. But I don't condemn Truman because at the time the Japanese were looked upon as nothing more then animals. We should fess up to what dropping the bomb(s) and the fire bombing of Dresden really were, acts of terror. Up until WW2 modern warfare avoided civilian targets, the allies changed all of that.

Yeah, cause the blitz never harmed any civilians .....
and someone forgot to tell the Japanese they were finished.

Yes, both sides bombed civilian targets but it was the allies that started it, and maybe for good reason. What it did was get Hitler to move his target from radar and military targets to civilian.

Here are some comment by those who lived then: Hiroshima: Quotes

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

No, you're only exhibiting your ignorance concerning the issue, as those targeted are afforded administrative due process.

 

[Freewill]

Yes, and it tells me there was no 16 year old who was targeted for a drone strike.

Oh I see what you are doing, you are believing what the administration fed you and are saying that the 16 year old boy and his cousins were not intentionally murdered it was manslaughter. Ok we'll go with that.

I've called you out for claiming that he was targeted every time I see you do it. I've pointed out to you numerous times that the President is authorized to conduct the campaign against al Qaeda as he sees fit.

Guns/missiles/arrows usually hit their target. I guess what you are saying is that you believe what the administration tells you and it makes some sort of difference to the 16 year old boy that he wasn't the target. Plus apparently your argument is that all brown skinned people are terrorist thus open for attack.

 

[Freewill]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

No, you're only exhibiting your ignorance concerning the issue, as those targeted are afforded administrative due process.

I will admit I don't know what administrative due process is, sounds like BS to me. And it must be news to the ACLU who brought the suit.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes, both sides bombed civilian targets but it was the allies that started it, and maybe for good reason. What it did was get Hitler to move his target from radar and military targets to civilian.

Yeah, cause the blitz came AFTERWARDS

 

[nodoginnafight]

First of all the 16 year old was not in combat when killed, was never in combat against America and posed no direct threat. THAT should be enough not to be targeted. Speech is not a reason to kill Americans. If we cross that line anything could happen.

When first asked Gibbs said this, can't get much more pathetic:

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

How do you know that this guy was "never in combat against America and posed no direct threat"????

All evidence is all I have. Unless you have some evidence he was. A direct threat means what? Direct threat means, to me, in actual direct combat. Kind of like if a person threatens you with a gun and you shoot them they were a direct threat. Verses someone you perceive as a threat and killing them.

What would you think if Russia did such a thing?

That's the point - we don't have any evidence. Presumably the CIA has some evidence that they are not sharing. Or they have none and this was just a royal screw-up.

The point is, neither of us have enough information to make that call.

 

[g5000]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.

And even farther from any US court jurisdiction.

They were in military operating theaters, not downtown.

 

[g5000]

So the 16 yr old boy from Denver waged war on the US?

Are you simple or is it just a bad day?

Which 16 year old boy was targeted again?

Do you have a search engine?

I have one, and it does not show the 16 year old was targeted by the United States.

So let's see YOUR link which says we did.

 

[Edgetho]

Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?

The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?

That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.

I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.

I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.

The truth is that Japan was finished we didn't have to invade or drop the bomb. But I don't condemn Truman because at the time the Japanese were looked upon as nothing more then animals. We should fess up to what dropping the bomb(s) and the fire bombing of Dresden really were, acts of terror. Up until WW2 modern warfare avoided civilian targets, the allies changed all of that.

Not a word or phrase of your post is accurate.

Throughout history, civilians have been targeted by Armies. Since.... Forever. Ever heard of the Punic Wars? Caesar's conquest of Gaul? How about what Genghis Khan would do to ANY City, town or Village that resisted him?

Do you think us burning Atlanta to the ground was aimed at Rebel troops? How about Sherman's March To The Sea? Burning Plantations at every opportunity.

The Germans during WWI had Rail Guns that they pointed in the general direction of Paris and fired several hundred rounds.... At least that many. Nobody is really sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gunhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcLERK4xZ14

After the Rape of Nanking Nanking Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the Bataan Death March Bataan Death March - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not to mention the way Japanese treated prisoners and civilians EVERYWHERE, I would have recommended Nuking every City and town in the Country.

Then going to China (where the vast majority of their troops were ) and killing every last one of them.

In fact, I would have been for exterminating them as a race.

Most of you don't know this but one of the reasons we were kinda pissed at Viet Nam was that they were harboring Japanese War Criminals and Uncle Ho wouldn't give them up.

See, the Japanese did NOT invade Viet Nam. It was presented to the Japanese on a platter by none other than Adolf Hitler. A present from him after he 'persuaded' the French to cede the Country to the Japanese.

The Vietnamese greeted the Japanese as liberators. Loved 'em.

Enough facts for now. Most people just can't handle them anyway

 

[g5000]

OMG you don't bother reading the links. HE is what the lawsuit was all about. There are pictures of him at the link I provided. Have you nurse do a google for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQlbnulmnEw

Here is a picture of who the CIA/Obama murdered.

He was not the target of the strike. No matter how many time you claim he was.

My proof is that he was killed, what is your proof that he was not targeted?

It is upon the claimant to prove their claim, not the skeptic to prove the negative.

Nice try.

Prove the boy was targeted for death by the US government, please.

Thank you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta

So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.

No, you're only exhibiting your ignorance concerning the issue, as those targeted are afforded administrative due process.

"Because Lord Obama Says so" is not due process