Why do so many defend the enemies of America?

[Saigon]

Bad idea. Somebody mentioned "slippery slope". This president is preoccupied with killing Americans. His record of lying about his intentions is well-known. How long will it be before the term "terrorist" applies to common criminals within our borders? From there, where will it go? Eventually, it won't be drone strikes, it'll be federal agents with Uzi's and shotguns having the right to kill at their discrimination anyone "suspected" of being a terrorist. Obama has a habit of being ambiguous with his definitions. Let's stick with the Constitution.

Childish paranoia isn't a good basis for policy.

If you are so afraid of your own people - move to Fiji.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't really have a problem with the policy at all. Where my concern lies is the hypocracy. Why is it OK (according to the left) to KILL people with drones, but pour a little water on their face while interrogating them and you are a bad person...

It's just more of the same from the left. Obama can do whatever he likes and they support it while ALL conservatives are evil.

Torturing prisoners of war is against the Geneva Convention. It is that simple. Has nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. Your president chose to break the Geneva Convention. That was the problem.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=uSvJaYxRoB4&feature=endscreen]Picard Facepalm - YouTube[/ame]

 

[nitroz]

If they are with the enemy, making bombs/trying to kill more US citizens, and become our enemy.

Then they are the enemy. A JDAM was justified for him.

 

[zeke]

Someone who has taken up arms against the United States is an enemy combatant against the United States, whether they wear a uniform or not, whether they are fighting us conventionally or with terrorist tactics. As enemy combatants in an active warzone the U.S. military is free to eliminate them at will - whether they are actively engaged in hostilities or asleep in their beds - and regardless of their citizenship.

Would anyone argue that the U.S. military would have had no right to kill a U.S. citizen who had defected and joined the German Army during WW II, while he lay asleep in barracks?

Why does the lack of uniform make a difference?

Would you seriously limit the tactics available to the U.S. military for neutralizing an enemy combatant who parents happen to be U.S. citizens to only detention and arrest - placing the lives of U.S. servicemembers at risk in doing so?

Would it have been illegal for the U.S. to have killed John Walker Lindh while he was still in the field of combat - whether he be engaged in hostilities at the time, sleeping, or in the outhouse? No. He was an enemy combatant.

If an enemy combatant wishes to avoid the possibility of being killed in the field by the U.S. military - they have the option of surrendering.

Oopoo.. are we a nation of laws.....or are we not?

Do we have rights as US citizens? According to you, evidentally not.

And your WWII analogy. Not so good. If I remember my history correct, the Congress of the USA DECLARED war on the Germans.

If the USA wants the office of POTUS to maintain a "kill" list that even includes American citizens who have not been charged with a crime, then take it up in Congress and pass the laws that make it so.

But this bull shit of allowing Presidents this kind of power is bullshit.

And are we that fragile and scared of those rag heads in tents and caves that we have to allow this kind of action from the office of our President? I am not, maybe you are?

 

[zeke]

I'm not sure why drones are relevent to this discussion.
Doubltess at some stage during WWII a British soldier fought with the Germans and visa versa - in doing so they would have been subject to the same artillery fire an bombings the enemy soldiers were. If any of us choose to go to Aghanistan and hang out with the Taliban, we are putting ourselves in a combat zone and should be prepared to take responsibility for that.

I don't think this debate can be applied to anywhere but a combat zone, though, hence it can't occur within the US.

Hey, how about this idea. We spotted a terrorist in Finland. Would it be ok with you if we fly a predator drone into your countries airspace and start firing Hellfire misseles? A few of your innocent civilians may be killed, but hey we got what we think was a "terrorist"

OK with you?

We have been firing missles for some time in countries we are not at war with. Why not your country to. We are America. We are so scared of terrorists that we have to kill whether we need to or not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

We only know they turned against the country because the government and the government media told us so.

Your wrong on that, his recruiting propaganda and speeches are on the net for anyone to see. They just arrested 4 of his recruits in CA recently.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6782947-post1.html

 

[BlindBoo]

I think they want to give us a glimspe of what their recation would have been had President Clinton offed OBL in the 90's.

Fauxrageous.

Someone who has taken up arms against the United States is an enemy combatant against the United States, whether they wear a uniform or not, whether they are fighting us conventionally or with terrorist tactics. As enemy combatants in an active warzone the U.S. military is free to eliminate them at will - whether they are actively engaged in hostilities or asleep in their beds - and regardless of their citizenship.

Would anyone argue that the U.S. military would have had no right to kill a U.S. citizen who had defected and joined the German Army during WW II, while he lay asleep in barracks?

Why does the lack of uniform make a difference?

Would you seriously limit the tactics available to the U.S. military for neutralizing an enemy combatant who parents happen to be U.S. citizens to only detention and arrest - placing the lives of U.S. servicemembers at risk in doing so?

Would it have been illegal for the U.S. to have killed John Walker Lindh while he was still in the field of combat - whether he be engaged in hostilities at the time, sleeping, or in the outhouse? No. He was an enemy combatant.

If an enemy combatant wishes to avoid the possibility of being killed in the field by the U.S. military - they have the option of surrendering.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama, Lord, Savior and Daddy, he can even kill American citizens

 

[there4eyeM]

"What about the "jihadists" we fund and provide material support to? Are they our enemies, as they fight our proxy wars?"

Yes, philosophically, politically and culturally. That they are used to serve in a limited and venal fashion may be questionable, but it does not relieve the onus.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, philosophically, politically and culturally. That they are used to serve limited and venal fashion may be questionable, but it does not relieve the onus.

I love that kind of honesty!

I wish more people on this "Board" could be like that?

 

[S.J.]

Bad idea. Somebody mentioned "slippery slope". This president is preoccupied with killing Americans. His record of lying about his intentions is well-known. How long will it be before the term "terrorist" applies to common criminals within our borders? From there, where will it go? Eventually, it won't be drone strikes, it'll be federal agents with Uzi's and shotguns having the right to kill at their discrimination anyone "suspected" of being a terrorist. Obama has a habit of being ambiguous with his definitions. Let's stick with the Constitution.

Childish paranoia isn't a good basis for policy.

If you are so afraid of your own people - move to Fiji.

Would you feel the same way if it were President Bush wanting this power?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bad idea. Somebody mentioned "slippery slope". This president is preoccupied with killing Americans. His record of lying about his intentions is well-known. How long will it be before the term "terrorist" applies to common criminals within our borders? From there, where will it go? Eventually, it won't be drone strikes, it'll be federal agents with Uzi's and shotguns having the right to kill at their discrimination anyone "suspected" of being a terrorist. Obama has a habit of being ambiguous with his definitions. Let's stick with the Constitution.

Childish paranoia isn't a good basis for policy.

If you are so afraid of your own people - move to Fiji.

Would you feel the same way if it were President Bush wanting this power?

Saigon is not an U.S. citizen so his opinion is irrelevant.
For all we know he could be an Al quedea operative

 

[High_Gravity]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

 

[High_Gravity]

aiding the enemy is pretty bad stuff But we should not be offing Americans without due process.

How do you suppose we do that? send the NYPD into the hills of Yemen to slap the cuffs on those boys?

 

[zeke]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

This may come as a shock to you. Nazi Germany and the Japanese created some pretty proficient "terrorists". The prison camp Nazi's were particularly bad terrorists.

And even they had the rule of law applied to them.

Now we want to eliminate the rule of law as applied to Americans who MIGHT commit a terrorist act.

It only took one Presidency to go from killing terroists in Afghanistan and Pakistan to killing Americans terrorists to being willing to kill Americans who might be terroists.

Wonder where the convenience killings might end. Aren't you not a little curious what the President three elections from now might decide who else would be ok to kill?

Take this issue to Congress. Make it possible for the SCOTUS to rule on it. Why do you want a President to have this much power?

 

[RosieS]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

This may come as a shock to you. Nazi Germany and the Japanese created some pretty proficient "terrorists". The prison camp Nazi's were particularly bad terrorists.

And even they had the rule of law applied to them.

Now we want to eliminate the rule of law as applied to Americans who MIGHT commit a terrorist act.

It only took one Presidency to go from killing terroists in Afghanistan and Pakistan to killing Americans terrorists to being willing to kill Americans who might be terroists.

Wonder where the convenience killings might end. Aren't you not a little curious what the President three elections from now might decide who else would be ok to kill?

Take this issue to Congress. Make it possible for the SCOTUS to rule on it. Why do you want a President to have this much power?

The issue is with Congress. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have oversight. SCOTUS isn't involved with wartime military defense.

It is pretty easy. If there is worry about which Americans might be killed in the future; simply teach them what treason is and insist that THEY DON't DO THAT.

There is safety in not turning against the US nor joining her enemies. Oh, and being Taliban could get you killed, too.

Regards from Rosie

 

[OKTexas]

I don't really have a problem with the policy at all. Where my concern lies is the hypocracy. Why is it OK (according to the left) to KILL people with drones, but pour a little water on their face while interrogating them and you are a bad person...

It's just more of the same from the left. Obama can do whatever he likes and they support it while ALL conservatives are evil.

Torturing prisoners of war is against the Geneva Convention. It is that simple. Has nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. Your president chose to break the Geneva Convention. That was the problem.

You are aware that the Geneva Conventions are a treaty that only apply to wars between nation states with uniformed armies, right? Also water boarding makes a person uncomfortable but does no actual physical harm. We use water boarding on our own troops for training, are you suggesting we are torturing them?

 

[OKTexas]

We only know they turned against the country because the government and the government media told us so.

Your wrong on that, his recruiting propaganda and speeches are on the net for anyone to see. They just arrested 4 of his recruits in CA recently.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6782947-post1.html

Yep, those are the ones. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your wrong on that, his recruiting propaganda and speeches are on the net for anyone to see. They just arrested 4 of his recruits in CA recently.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6782947-post1.html

Yep, those are the ones. Thanks for proving my point.

They came here given a pass by obama's homeland security was that your point?

 

[OKTexas]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6782947-post1.html

Yep, those are the ones. Thanks for proving my point.

They came here given a pass by obama's homeland security was that your point?

Nope, from your post: According to the court documents, Kabir, 34, allegedly began his recruitment of Deleon, 23, and Vidriales, 21, in 2010 by introducing them to the radical teachings of now-deceased al-Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

The bold area was my point, the guy was overtly waging war against the US, he deserved what he got and there was no question as to his activities.