Well I guess Killing Americans with due process is OK

[pvsi]

Well I guess Killing Americans with due process is OK

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

Iraq invasion had full approval of Congress, as required by the Constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime.

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.

And in Robberies, and in fist fights, and knock out games, and in drug overdoses, and so on.

 

[Freewill]

Well I just heard on the radio that Obama was going to release justification for killing Americans with drones. Interesting that he feels the need but I think I have found out why.

Barron likely to be confirmed to appeals court

What is the connection? Barron is the "Drone Judge." He wrote a letter on the justification for the killing of Americans through drone. So far the Obama administration has stonewalled and not released the memo, now with his nomination they may have to release the letter.

I predicted two years ago that this illegal action by the President would be his downfall, I still think it should but I don't believe America really cares about killing brown skinned people.

 

[Freewill]

For the war hawk liberals who now have their blood lust up, not to worry. The civil suit against the administration was thrown out of court. So the flying monkeys are now free to kill without reservation. Even civilians in countries to which we are not at war. Anyone in the ME that doesn't like it had better either keep their mouth shut or buy life insurance, for them and anyone that lives, walks or stands near them.

Judge Tosses Case Against US Officials Over Drone Strikes - TIME

A federal judge said that U.S. officials can't be "held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war." The drone attacks in question killed U.S. citizens in Yemen, including an al-Qaeda cleric

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO - the legal case was always a little iffy (imho) in terms of suing individuals within the administration for collective U.S. government activity. I think the question really is a political one and I hope that the release of the "justification" memo will provide the fodder to get that political discussion going in earnest.

I'm very uncomfortable with "strike zones," "kill lists," targeting based on behavior patterns, attacks well outside combat areas, and the apparent lack of safeguards against collateral damage and killing innocent bystanders.

I realize that a lot of this activity must be conducted in secret, but I also believe that the broader policies that lay out the ground rules for these activities need to be debated. These things must be conducted in a way that complies with who and what we are in the United States of America.

Just MHO.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my. When the 'Conservatives' are not cheering for Putin, they are crying over dead terrorists.

Since when is the ACLU conservative?

Be consistent.

If you would be outraged if Bush did this, you should be outraged now.

To much partisan ethics these days.

How many of the same folks who opposed the war in Iraq supported war with Syria ONLY because their man was going to look like an ignoramus with his "red line" if we didn't.

And how many of the folks who secretly wanted to topple Bashir opposed it just to make Obama look like an ignoramus?

And perhaps that is the case for some here.

But, the rule of law, under which we all must abide, clearly states that no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

It is not up for debate...that is the Constitutional threshold.

You join a terrorist group, you plan civilian deaths in the US, you are dead meat. If you are a US Citizen, that does not matter. If you are in Moscow Square, that does not matter, you are dead meat. That is how it should be, and the President deserves praise for adopting that attitude. That you idiots would support such people shows the depths of your depravity and hatred toward the present President.

 

[Freewill]

My, my. When the 'Conservatives' are not cheering for Putin, they are crying over dead terrorists.

Since when is the ACLU conservative?

Be consistent.

If you would be outraged if Bush did this, you should be outraged now.

To much partisan ethics these days.

How many of the same folks who opposed the war in Iraq supported war with Syria ONLY because their man was going to look like an ignoramus with his "red line" if we didn't.

And how many of the folks who secretly wanted to topple Bashir opposed it just to make Obama look like an ignoramus?

And perhaps that is the case for some here.

But, the rule of law, under which we all must abide, clearly states that no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

It is not up for debate...that is the Constitutional threshold.

You join a terrorist group, you plan civilian deaths in the US, you are dead meat. If you are a US Citizen, that does not matter. If you are in Moscow Square, that does not matter, you are dead meat. That is how it should be, and the President deserves praise for adopting that attitude. That you idiots would support such people shows the depths of your depravity and hatred toward the present President.

Well well well the blood lust of the liberal mind is in display. Dead meat sounds just like the liberal view of abortion, not so much capital punishment.

What kind of brain damage must be sufferer before liberal realizes that we ALL want the terrorist gone? As we all should want the cop killers gone?

What part of the constitution don't the liberals understand? Does the Constitution say that if the American is in another country and the CIA declares him guilty that is enough. No it does not.

 

[Freewill]

IMHO - the legal case was always a little iffy (imho) in terms of suing individuals within the administration for collective U.S. government activity. I think the question really is a political one and I hope that the release of the "justification" memo will provide the fodder to get that political discussion going in earnest.

I'm very uncomfortable with "strike zones," "kill lists," targeting based on behavior patterns, attacks well outside combat areas, and the apparent lack of safeguards against collateral damage and killing innocent bystanders.

I realize that a lot of this activity must be conducted in secret, but I also believe that the broader policies that lay out the ground rules for these activities need to be debated. These things must be conducted in a way that complies with who and what we are in the United States of America.

Just MHO.

The issue is not whether or not we want terrorists gone it has to do with due process.

 

[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.

And in Robberies, and in fist fights, and knock out games, and in drug overdoses, and so on.

All true. Of no moment in supporting your "argument," but true just the same.

We might as well note another relatively irrelevant fact:

At sea level, water freezes at around the 32 degree Fahrenheit temperature.

 

[BlindBoo]

Since when is the ACLU conservative?

Be consistent.

If you would be outraged if Bush did this, you should be outraged now.

To much partisan ethics these days.

How many of the same folks who opposed the war in Iraq supported war with Syria ONLY because their man was going to look like an ignoramus with his "red line" if we didn't.

And how many of the folks who secretly wanted to topple Bashir opposed it just to make Obama look like an ignoramus?

And perhaps that is the case for some here.

But, the rule of law, under which we all must abide, clearly states that no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

It is not up for debate...that is the Constitutional threshold.

You join a terrorist group, you plan civilian deaths in the US, you are dead meat. If you are a US Citizen, that does not matter. If you are in Moscow Square, that does not matter, you are dead meat. That is how it should be, and the President deserves praise for adopting that attitude. That you idiots would support such people shows the depths of your depravity and hatred toward the present President.

Well well well the blood lust of the liberal mind is in display. Dead meat sounds just like the liberal view of abortion, not so much capital punishment.

What kind of brain damage must be sufferer before liberal realizes that we ALL want the terrorist gone? As we all should want the cop killers gone?

What part of the constitution don't the liberals understand? Does the Constitution say that if the American is in another country and the CIA declares him guilty that is enough. No it does not.

It has been and always will be the presidents call, not the CIA's. The CIA may have the go ahead but it is up to the President.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So how he selects those targets and what, if anything, he does to prevent civilian casualties is "just none of our business"???????

 

[BlindBoo]

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So how he selects those targets and what, if anything, he does to prevent civilian casualties is "just none of our business"???????

Looks that way. I don't see any criteria compelling the President to do so in that resolution, do you?

Of course it was passed in 2001 by the same Congress that gave GWB the deciding power on Iraq, without any criteria for an explanation of his decision either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As usual few are understanding the issue.

The 5th Amendment refers to due process only – it neither mandates judicial due process nor forbids administrative due process, where the Executive is affording those targeted the latter.

The issue, therefore, is not about due process per se, but whether administrative due process is adequate and appropriate.

Also at issue is the political question doctrine, where the courts have consistently ruled that they have no jurisdiction concerning the Executive’s use of military force (Baker v. Carr (1962)). The courts’ rationale has been that such issues are subject solely to the political relationship between the Executive Branch and the American people, where any controversies are to be resolved at the ballot box, not in the courts.

Indeed, if the people object to a given president’s policy, such as the targeting program, they are at liberty to vote him out of office should he run for a second term.

Last, the War Powers Act of 1973 was a monumental mistake on the part of Congress, where the Legislative Branch abdicated its Constitutional mandate to declare war to that of the Executive, thus empowering those who interpret the president’s Article II, Section 2 authority as to allowing him to act unilaterally with regard to the use of American military force.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

^ some simpletons cannot grasp that "due process" is not accorded to the belligerents one is trying to kill on the battlefield in times of war. There is no particular "process" to which they are "due," except good faith efforts to comply with the laws and rules of war including treaties and accords.

 

[Old Rocks]

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So how he selects those targets and what, if anything, he does to prevent civilian casualties is "just none of our business"???????

An awful lot of territory in that statement. How much information do we wish to have made public concerning the criterion on strikes? Since the terrorists actively use civilians as sheilds, do we allow them to build a nuclear device because of the shields? How many boots do you want on the ground, and how many American causualties because using drones might result in civilian deaths.

And, yes, concerning terrorists that actively plan death for civilians all over the world, I advocate zero mercy. Take them out. Irregardless of nationality or location.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well I just heard on the radio that Obama was going to release justification for killing Americans with drones. Interesting that he feels the need but I think I have found out why.

Barron likely to be confirmed to appeals court

What is the connection? Barron is the "Drone Judge." He wrote a letter on the justification for the killing of Americans through drone. So far the Obama administration has stonewalled and not released the memo, now with his nomination they may have to release the letter.

I predicted two years ago that this illegal action by the President would be his downfall, I still think it should but I don't believe America really cares about killing brown skinned people.

It's not illegal and the American people want to know their enemies, including other Americans and those with them, are not safe overseas away from LEO. Those who avoid the law are not protected by the law.

 

[Freewill]

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So how he selects those targets and what, if anything, he does to prevent civilian casualties is "just none of our business"???????

An awful lot of territory in that statement. How much information do we wish to have made public concerning the criterion on strikes? Since the terrorists actively use civilians as sheilds, do we allow them to build a nuclear device because of the shields? How many boots do you want on the ground, and how many American causualties because using drones might result in civilian deaths.

And, yes, concerning terrorists that actively plan death for civilians all over the world, I advocate zero mercy. Take them out. Irregardless of nationality or location.

Really that is where we are, to the point where we are them. You argue from the absurd. NONE of the strikes even mention a nuclear weapon. Most are killed by GPS attached to their house or car or to someone else's, it doesn't matter the drone just follow the signal set by someone being paid.

That said, you are good with it if a terrorist set up shop in your neighborhood and we took out that entire neighborhood to get the terrorists? Of course you would not be.

 

[Freewill]

You join a terrorist group, you plan civilian deaths in the US, you are dead meat. If you are a US Citizen, that does not matter. If you are in Moscow Square, that does not matter, you are dead meat. That is how it should be, and the President deserves praise for adopting that attitude. That you idiots would support such people shows the depths of your depravity and hatred toward the present President.

Well well well the blood lust of the liberal mind is in display. Dead meat sounds just like the liberal view of abortion, not so much capital punishment.

What kind of brain damage must be sufferer before liberal realizes that we ALL want the terrorist gone? As we all should want the cop killers gone?

What part of the constitution don't the liberals understand? Does the Constitution say that if the American is in another country and the CIA declares him guilty that is enough. No it does not.

It has been and always will be the presidents call, not the CIA's. The CIA may have the go ahead but it is up to the President.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Yemen somehow had something to do with 9/11? And of course it is the President's call that is why he would be the war criminal. The president of the unitied states is not suppose to be judge, jury and executioner. At least when it comes to UNITED STATES citizens. I thought the war in Afghanistan was all about getting those responsible for 9/11. And that that left was protesting the war in Iraq because there was no connection. So now we are bombing ally countries on the same pretense? Really?

 

[Freewill]

IMHO - the legal case was always a little iffy (imho) in terms of suing individuals within the administration for collective U.S. government activity. I think the question really is a political one and I hope that the release of the "justification" memo will provide the fodder to get that political discussion going in earnest.

I'm very uncomfortable with "strike zones," "kill lists," targeting based on behavior patterns, attacks well outside combat areas, and the apparent lack of safeguards against collateral damage and killing innocent bystanders.

I realize that a lot of this activity must be conducted in secret, but I also believe that the broader policies that lay out the ground rules for these activities need to be debated. These things must be conducted in a way that complies with who and what we are in the United States of America.

Just MHO.

What relief does someone have when their loved one is killed?

 

[Freewill]

^ some simpletons cannot grasp that "due process" is not accorded to the belligerents one is trying to kill on the battlefield in times of war. There is no particular "process" to which they are "due," except good faith efforts to comply with the laws and rules of war including treaties and accords.

None of the Americans killed were on the battlefield, none were even in a country to which we are not ally. The constitution of the united states affords ALL Americans certain right whether we like those people or not. What is the big deal of having a military or civilian court at least review the evidence and make a guilty/innocent verdict? Sorry I think the same thing would happen if due process was followed. There was no immediate threat, THEY WERE NOT ON ANY BATTLEFIELD.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well well well the blood lust of the liberal mind is in display. Dead meat sounds just like the liberal view of abortion, not so much capital punishment.

What kind of brain damage must be sufferer before liberal realizes that we ALL want the terrorist gone? As we all should want the cop killers gone?

What part of the constitution don't the liberals understand? Does the Constitution say that if the American is in another country and the CIA declares him guilty that is enough. No it does not.

It has been and always will be the presidents call, not the CIA's. The CIA may have the go ahead but it is up to the President.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Yemen somehow had something to do with 9/11? And of course it is the President's call that is why he would be the war criminal. The president of the unitied states is not suppose to be judge, jury and executioner. At least when it comes to UNITED STATES citizens. I thought the war in Afghanistan was all about getting those responsible for 9/11. And that that left was protesting the war in Iraq because there was no connection. So now we are bombing ally countries on the same pretense? Really?

Two things. We are not attacking Yemen as the government there has given approval to attack al Qaeda strongholds in the south. Second, Congress has given the President the authority "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

I'm sure you can drum up some al Qaeda sympathizers and Teabag nutters to agree with you that he is a war criminal, but, well, they're just nucking futz.