|
I've chosen Glen's write up on the document because its one of the best that I've come across so far that breaks down some of the issues clearly.
I really do encourage folks to read not the article first but the actual "white paper" first (found at the bottom of the article). Then read the article and form your own opinions and arguments.
For now the only thing I have to add is that this isn't even the actual secret memo used by the administration. This is a "white paper" that isn't even signed or dated but it gives us some insight to what the actual document might be like. Keep that in mind that this is essentially a watered down leak.
|
for future reference you can further acronym that to wpfobdojja
|
Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc...
|
I find it scary that the same people who control the drones and can order the strike are the same ones who define what terrorism is. They can kill you without evidence. We are shift further and further away from the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. This isn't even guilty until proven innocent. It is just guilty.
|
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
|
I may be a little blind or watch too many movies, but on the flip side; doesn't this "legal killing" thing (assuming it's used in a not-so-reprehensible way) mean that the President can deal with threats *without* being bound by the legal process, thus potentially save lives rather than avenge lives?
It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"...
|
if jack bauer is the one leading the operation, i'm ok with it.
|
On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote:
Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc...
Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
|
On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote:
It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"...
Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers.
Otherwise, there is no difference between the US and the oppressive factions it claims to be against, other than we assume Obama is a nice enough guy not to kill the wrong people.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 06 2013 09:11 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote:
It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"... Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers. This is exactly what the debate over Executive Orders is. It's just most people don't know or care about it.
The fact that the US can use drone strikes against its citizens is headline grabbing but I think most informed people already realized it was the case. The interesting thing about this is just the legal gymnastics they have to do to justify it.
|
On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote:
I may be a little blind or watch too many movies, but on the flip side; doesn't this "legal killing" thing (assuming it's used in a not-so-reprehensible way) mean that the President can deal with threats *without* being bound by the legal process, thus potentially save lives rather than avenge lives?
It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"...
That's the thing though. The administration wants to keep the "process" secret. That's why Holder came out a few months ago saying there's a difference between judicial process and due process.
The process being used here can be anything - they won't define it. Literally and I'm not being facetious, they could be doing rock, scissors, paper as Colbert put it to determine if you're "guilty".
Even if we decided that there was a process, it doesn't make it okay that only the executive branch has anything to do with it. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate that if someone accuses you being a thief, they don't get to judge you and also punish you based on their "process".
|
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
LOL you think that bush is far from the tree? I believe that he was the root of the problem we have today. The war on terrorism is and was an unfortunate excuse for murder on a large scale. To be honest I would not have been surprised if this was a bush policy.
|
The process of selecting who to kill isn't entirely a mystery. There were a couple interviews last year about the national security meetings, on Tuesdays I think, when Obama and his closest advisers get dossiers on potential targets and discuss the merits of executing them or not. I doubt that there's a 'vote' on the matter, and don't know if Obama simply does a thumbs-up or thumbs-down routine, as I'm not aware of the details of the debates. Basically, the administration was trying to argue that they take this responsibility with all the weight and seriousness it demands as they act in the best interest of the nation's security. Take that as you will.
For me, I don't mind the drone strikes too much. Terrorists, especially the Islamic extremists like Al-Qaeda, have repeatedly said they're at war with the US and act accordingly. Killing them before they kill us is certainly not pretty, nor perfect, but is much preferable to the converse. Also, there aren't many 'legal gymnastics' involved in these Executive Orders. Presidents have been using such orders with increasing regularity and, on the whole, have been proven to be justified in doing so. Even though Holder didn't explain it well by any means, there is a difference between judicial and due process. To expect to detain, try, and sentence mass murderers, or wannabe killers, of varying nationalities is not feasible. However, the risk to innocent civilians seems to be undervalued and the case of a guy like Anwar Al-Awlaki is troubling to say the least.
|
That was kind of an awful article to read, I question its validity.
|
On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote:
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
Yeah, it's obviously better to invade and destabilize an entire region at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, as opposed to precise, surgical strikes that have been proven to be effective at eliminating key terrorist leaders. And let's also conveniently forget that this type of thing has been going on for centuries, in different shapes and sizes.
|
On February 06 2013 11:50 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote:
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before. Yeah, it's obviously better to invade and destabilize an entire region at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, as opposed to precise, surgical strikes that have been proven to be effective at eliminating key terrorist leaders. And let's also conveniently forget that this type of thing has been going on for centuries, in different shapes and sizes.
I am not endorsing full scale invasion at all. In fact, I am 10 times happier that Obama did not capture Osama bin Ladin by sending in 50,000 troops into Pakistan which would have resulted in mass catastrophe.
All I am doing is expressing my concern about justice in the future with the use of drones and assassinations.
|
I have no problem with people who are actively working towards mass violence against US citizens being killed. I am in favor of it, in fact, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a US citizen. Without drone strikes, it's almost certain that terrorist networks' capabilities would be greater and the odds of mass violence against westerners would be higher.
|
This has happened before. In the early 70's Nixon allowed Pinochet, and the ring of repressive Latin American Dictators who were making people dissapear in Latin America, bomb a car to kill a runaway "disappeared person." Furthermore, when Nixon's watergate scandal was uncovered, the CIA had been acting internally in the U.S.A. (that is not allowed, they are specifically overseas) to stop people that they branded as dangerous to the peace. This was hugely illegal, unethical, and when uncovered, led to the mass distrust in government that most of that generation still has to this day. In general, I'm not in favor for this, because history has shown us where this leads. This leads to people "disappearing," and less government transparency rather than more. The fact is that even though these assasinations may in fact keep us a bit more safe, I'm unsure we can trust our government only 50 years later to do what they got in trouble for doing 50 years ago. That said, they have continued to do this secretly in America forever, so I'm not surprised. Also, I hate to say this, but I doubt this is going to be the last we see of these issues, I bet there will be a lot more of these in the future.
|
On February 06 2013 09:11 Solarsail wrote:
Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers.
Otherwise, there is no difference between the US and the oppressive factions it claims to be against, other than we assume Obama is a nice enough guy not to kill the wrong people.
I can see where you're coming from, but are you then saying the person voted in is a dirtbag? I always thought be promoted to a leadership position meant someone or some people see something positive in you.
On February 06 2013 09:24 wangstra wrote:
That's the thing though. The administration wants to keep the "process" secret. That's why Holder came out a few months ago saying there's a difference between judicial process and due process.
The process being used here can be anything - they won't define it. Literally and I'm not being facetious, they could be doing rock, scissors, paper as Colbert put it to determine if you're "guilty".
Even if we decided that there was a process, it doesn't make it okay that only the executive branch has anything to do with it. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate that if someone accuses you being a thief, they don't get to judge you and also punish you based on their "process".
I guess so, that would leave me pretty salty about the whole affair.
The principle seems wrong, but I would also have to fault 'innocent people' being in terrorism/activist hotspots, even if the legislation supporting is pretty weak. But from what everyone is saying, I agree it seems a little overzealous to say it's cool to hit US Citizen targets.
But isn't this sort of like a more direct version of PsyOps? Aren't those guys bound by some silly 'no influencing US peoples' thing, but that doesn't stop them from influencing someone else to then influence the US >_>;;;;
|
On February 06 2013 09:09 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote:
Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
C'mon man... How many terrorist attacks were there on the US a year before September 11th... Zero? So that was the assumed number of genuine terrorists at the time. Then we got attacked. Just because there is no immediate evidence of terrorism doesn't mean it's not being planned.
On topic: Seems pretty messed up. People shouldn't be killing people anywhere, but it's worse imo when a leader does it to his own people. Let's see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
