|
On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers.
You're blurring lines again.
As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them.
We don't and shouldn't need to find every member of al-Qaida who is a US citizen guilty before killing them. Just as the North didn't have to find every rebel soldier guilty of treason before killing them on the battlefield in the Civil War. The North didn't have to wait to be fired on in every battle to return fire...
We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered.
|
Whats interesting when they count numbers of 'militants' is any male aged over 16 is counted as a militant unless he can be 100% proved as innocent. When the people being attacked are poor villagers it doesn't happen.
link
There have been multiple incidents of attacking rescuers or people at funerals, link2and claim by some people that many of the CIA targeters on the ground who are locals where simply pocketing money given to them by handlers and identifying seemingly random targets or rivals in other clans etc. A Stanford and New York university law societies estimate that in all likelihood for every 100 people killed by drone strikes 2 are miltants.
link3
Heres the mentality of some of the drone operators. This was published in a german newspaper who were with some drone operators.
Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.
"Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.
"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.
"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.
Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.
link4
Not that they did it deliberately. But when your judge, jury and executioner it doesn't matter.
|
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
Does anyone really disagree with that?
Do you not understand that condition 2 and condition 3 are completely contradictory? How can capture be infeasible and violent attack be imminent? To attack the United States the terrorists have to come here. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. Those that perpetrated 9/11 came to the US. The underwear bomber came to the US. Any way you slice it they have to come here, and by coming here it makes capture completely feasible.
I don't care about some idiot in the desert making plans because we are capable of capturing his henchmen ad inifinitum with our new found post-911 awareness about terrorism. Do you really think we would have gone after bin Laden with such vim had we foiled 9/11?
|
United States41961 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:
[quote]
Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered.
You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists.
|
On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists.
Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part.
|
On February 07 2013 03:58 Brobe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
Does anyone really disagree with that? Do you not understand that condition 2 and condition 3 are completely contradictory? How can capture be infeasible and violent attack be imminent? To attack the United States the terrorists have to come here. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. Those that perpetrated 9/11 came to the US. The underwear bomber came to the US. Any way you slice it they have to come here, and by coming here it makes capture completely feasible. I don't care about some idiot in the desert making plans because we are capable of capturing his henchmen ad inifinitum with our new found post-911 awareness about terrorism. Do you really think we would have gone after bin Laden with such vim had we foiled 9/11?
The United States=/= the continental US and Hawaii. It also includes US interests, allies, and personnel abroad.
|
On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists.
Ok, so if a US citizen is al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, we should not assassinate them without first the court finding them guilty?
Or, are you arguing that the government needs to first prove they are al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States in court?
|
On February 07 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:58 Brobe wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
Does anyone really disagree with that? Do you not understand that condition 2 and condition 3 are completely contradictory? How can capture be infeasible and violent attack be imminent? To attack the United States the terrorists have to come here. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. Those that perpetrated 9/11 came to the US. The underwear bomber came to the US. Any way you slice it they have to come here, and by coming here it makes capture completely feasible. I don't care about some idiot in the desert making plans because we are capable of capturing his henchmen ad inifinitum with our new found post-911 awareness about terrorism. Do you really think we would have gone after bin Laden with such vim had we foiled 9/11? The United States=/= the continental US and Hawaii. It also includes US interests, allies, and personnel abroad.
What are those?
|
United States41961 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:
[quote]
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part.
Why on earth do you consider this a war, other than the declaration of a war on terror. How does it in any way resemble a war? Who are you fighting? What is the sphere? What is the goal? When will you know you've won? How will you achieve it?
It's not a war and I'm amazed that you, with your right wing small government ideology, are going along with this. It's the declaration of an ongoing universal state of emergency because of a cardboard cutout demon.
|
United States41961 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:02 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:
[quote]
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Ok, so if a US citizen is al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, we should not assassinate them without first the court finding them guilty? Or, are you arguing that the government needs to first prove they are al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States in court?
Would it be so hard to try them in a closed hearing without their presence before bombing the shit out of them? It wouldn't be justice but it'd be a lot, lot better than this. That's what we do with terror suspects in the UK.
Also I think you hugely overestimate the damage a terrorist can do to the US and undervalue the system itself. The principles at stake are worth more than the lives of the people who died in 9/11. 3000 people is really not very many at all, whereas democratic principles were valued highly enough to justify the hundreds of thousands of casualties in WWII. Do you not see a contradiction there?
|
It's amazing how people talk about a narrow scope how these powers should or should not be used here and now and not think about the implication of giving away such wide reaching powers.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
America is no longer deserving.
|
On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. How does it in any way resemble a war?
You see Kwark, and I partially can't believe I am saying this, what your saying is exactly what the terrorists want.
They have changed the meta-game in warfare, and you're asking us to rely on the same old ways, not to update our laws to meet the current circumstance and challenges. Basically, the terrorists are 6 pooling, and you're demanding we open Nexus first, because that is what we've always done, and because we aren't really facing a threat. But we are.
The problem is that 6 pooling hard counters the Nexus first, just like due process can protect an al-Qaida senior member who can't be captured reasonably and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States who happens to be a US citizen.
On February 07 2013 04:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Ok, so if a US citizen is al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, we should not assassinate them without first the court finding them guilty? Or, are you arguing that the government needs to first prove they are al-Qaida senior members who can't be captured and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States in court? Would it be so hard to try them in a closed hearing without their presence before bombing the shit out of them? It wouldn't be justice but it'd be a lot, lot better than this. That's what we do with terror suspects in the UK. Also I think you hugely overestimate the damage a terrorist can do to the US and undervalue the system itself. The principles at stake are worth more than the lives of the people who died in 9/11. 3000 people is really not very many at all, whereas democratic principles were valued highly enough to justify the hundreds of thousands of casualties in WWII. Do you not see a contradiction there?
If it means that it inhibits the ability of the President to defend America, then absolutely.
And I don't want to argue about how much damage a terrorist can do. Democratic principles were not the reason to justify the casualties in WWII, ask Poland how that turned out... the casualties for justified for other reasons. But that is all besides the point.
|
United States41961 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:
[quote]
You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis:
[quote] It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. How does it in any way resemble a war? You see Kwark, and I partially can't believe I am saying this, what your saying is exactly what the terrorists want. They have changed the meta-game in warfare, and you're asking us to rely on the same old ways, not to update our laws to meet the current circumstance and challenges. Basically, the terrorists are 6 pooling, and you're demanding we open Nexus first, because that is what we've always done, and because we aren't really facing a threat. But we are. The problem is that 6 pooling hard counters the Nexus first, just like due process can protect an al-Qaida senior member who can't be captured reasonably and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States who happens to be a US citizen.
We're starting with about 19 mining bases and they have two drones, I don't mind if they kill a few probes before our first zealot pops out because we still have 19 bases. Scrapping most of them to rush out a cannon leaves you with fewer minerals then the loss of the probes.
|
Would it be so hard to try them in a closed hearing without their presence before bombing the shit out of them? It wouldn't be justice but it'd be a lot, lot better than this. That's what we do with terror suspects in the UK.
Also I think you hugely overestimate the damage a terrorist can do to the US and undervalue the system itself. The principles at stake are worth more than the lives of the people who died in 9/11. 3000 people is really not very many at all, whereas democratic principles were valued highly enough to justify the hundreds of thousands of casualties in WWII. Do you not see a contradiction there?
If it means that it inhibits the ability of the President to defend America, then absolutely.
And I don't want to argue about how much damage a terrorist can do. Democratic principles were not the reason to justify the casualties in WWII, ask Poland how that turned out... the casualties for justified for other reasons. But that is all besides the point.
|
On February 07 2013 04:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are:
(1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met!
You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. How does it in any way resemble a war? You see Kwark, and I partially can't believe I am saying this, what your saying is exactly what the terrorists want. They have changed the meta-game in warfare, and you're asking us to rely on the same old ways, not to update our laws to meet the current circumstance and challenges. Basically, the terrorists are 6 pooling, and you're demanding we open Nexus first, because that is what we've always done, and because we aren't really facing a threat. But we are. The problem is that 6 pooling hard counters the Nexus first, just like due process can protect an al-Qaida senior member who can't be captured reasonably and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States who happens to be a US citizen. We're starting with about 19 mining bases and they have two drones, I don't mind if they kill a few probes before our first zealot pops out because we still have 19 bases. Scrapping most of them to rush out a cannon leaves you with fewer minerals then the loss of the probes.
Nah, it is more like we start with 19 mining bases and they have a huge supply of Baneling creators hiding around a huge map, and they send Banelings at us.
One of those Baneling creators (which is know is an enemy Baneling creator) happens to be a Protoss citizen, and thus, we can't kill it until it actually does damage to us, or until a committee reviews whether or not it is an enemy... sounds dumb eh?
Anyway, my whole point with that analogy is that you can't let terrorists use due process to help them achieve their goals. It makes no sense, and you still haven't take on that point.
|
On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. Why on earth do you consider this a war, other than the declaration of a war on terror. How does it in any way resemble a war? Who are you fighting? What is the sphere? What is the goal? When will you know you've won? How will you achieve it? It's not a war and I'm amazed that you, with your right wing small government ideology, are going along with this. It's the declaration of an ongoing universal state of emergency because of a cardboard cutout demon.
Why would I consider it a war?
I consider flying planes into buildings to be an act of war.
I consider blowing up embassies to be acts of war.
I consider open hostilities between organized groups to be a war.
How does it resemble a war? Hmmm. Gunfire, explosives, mortars, artillery, mines, bazookas, helicopters, aircraft, all being used to kill people on their side who use gunfire, mortars, explosives, bazookas, SAMs, mines to kill people on our side. That seems rather... warlike.
Who are we fighting? Muslims who blow stuff up because Allah said so.
What is the sphere? The globe.
What is the goal? To physically and psychologically crush them, just like the goal in any war.
When will we know we've won? When Muslims blow stuff up a lot less frequently than they do now. They already do it a lot less frequently than they did just a few years ago, so I guess a war on a word isn't all that Don Quixote after all, is it? All those clever morons saying you can't fight a war on a word, with their heads up their asses smelling their own farts and jerking each other off about how smart they are and how dumb those neanderthals trying to fight a word are. I guess in the real world, terrorism isn't a word, it's a behavior by people, and if you stop the people, preferably with a Hellfire missile, you stop the behavior.
How will we achieve it? By killing them or making them give in to despair. You know, the main way to achieve your objectives in war. Incapacitate them physically through death or injury or psychologically by making them think they can't win and fighting on will only result in more destruction of their own than they can bear.
It is a war, and you're a fool for saying it isn't. All your questions are mostly irrelevant anyway; two sides are engaging in open hostilities using weapons of war, that's a war.
No matter how much you don't like it.
I don't see the US in a state of emergency, do you? It's their countries that are in states of emergency.
Just the way you want it for your side. In a war. Like the one we're in.
It's amazing how people talk about a narrow scope how these powers should or should not be used here and now and not think about the implication of giving away such wide reaching powers.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
America is no longer deserving.
You mean the powers that America has used for over 200 years without turning authoritarian or worse? America is not deserving? We've shown over a dozen times that we damn well are.
|
United States41961 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 04:06 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:
[quote]
You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis:
[quote] It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part. Why on earth do you consider this a war, other than the declaration of a war on terror. How does it in any way resemble a war? Who are you fighting? What is the sphere? What is the goal? When will you know you've won? How will you achieve it? It's not a war and I'm amazed that you, with your right wing small government ideology, are going along with this. It's the declaration of an ongoing universal state of emergency because of a cardboard cutout demon. Why would I consider it a war? I consider flying planes into buildings to be an act of war.I consider blowing up embassies to be acts of war.I consider open hostilities between organized groups to be a war.How does it resemble a war? Hmmm. Gunfire, explosives, mortars, artillery, mines, bazookas, helicopters, aircraft, all being used to kill people who use gunfire, mortars, explosives, mines to kill people on our side. That seems rather... warlike. Who are we fighting? Muslims who blow stuff up because Allah said so. What is the sphere? The globe. What is the goal? To physically and psychologically crush them, just like the goal in any war. When will we know we've won? When Muslims blow stuff up a lot less frequently than they do now. How will we achieve it? By killing them or making them give in to despair. You know, the main way to achieve your objectives in war. Incapacitate them physically through death or injury or psychologically by making them think they can't win and fighting on will only result in more destruction of their own than they can bear. It is a war, and you're a fool for saying it isn't. All your questions are mostly irrelevant anyway; two sides are engaging in open hostilities using weapons of war, that's a war. No matter how much you don't like it. I don't see the US in a state of emergency, do you? It's their countries that are in states of emergency. Just the way you want it for your side. In a war. Like the one we're in. Show nested quote +
It's amazing how people talk about a narrow scope how these powers should or should not be used here and now and not think about the implication of giving away such wide reaching powers.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
America is no longer deserving.
You mean the powers that America has used for over 200 years without turning authoritarian or worse? America is not deserving? We've shown over a dozen times that we damn well are.
Sigh.
You don't think the executive has expanded its powers to deal with the perpetual state of war which it has defined itself as being in? You don't think declaring that there is an indefinite war against a vaguely defined idea amounts to a declaration of a state of emergency?
Some guys flew some planes some buildings. It was shitty. Fortunately the guys who flew the planes died on the planes and the guy who was behind it was executed after admitting his guilt. Good job. But it's no war, no more than the war on drugs or, for that matter, the perceived war on Christianity. The only reason bits of it resemble a war is because after declaring war on terror the US followed it with declaring war on some other countries, some, like Afghanistan, being related and some, like Iraq and (well not declaring war on Libya) being in no way related.
Declaring that there is an ongoing war on terror and then declaring war on some actual places afterwards doesn't mean you're fighting a war on terror, it means you're fighting a war against some actual places at some point after you declared a war on terror.
|
On February 07 2013 03:19 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:14 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread. Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained. But there is a check and balance. If the President assassinates US citizens who don't fit following three criteria: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.He will be held accountable. He can't just assassinate people for no reason. I think we can all agree the United States is at war with Al-Qaida (as much as we can be at war with that organization), and thus these conditions should apply.
The memo states that, "The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." So basically, the same kind of imminent threat that Iraq was to America.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2013 05:01 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:19 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread. Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained. But there is a check and balance. If the President assassinates US citizens who don't fit following three criteria: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.He will be held accountable. He can't just assassinate people for no reason. I think we can all agree the United States is at war with Al-Qaida (as much as we can be at war with that organization), and thus these conditions should apply. The memo states that, "The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." So basically, the same kind of imminent threat that Iraq was to America.
i think the standard is higher and the situation is different.
the memo is designed to address individual tactical operations, not broad acts of war (though the drone war is certainly already overreached here)
making this distinction more prominent could limit stuff like drones while still preserving intelligence operation assassinations on high priority targets.
|
On February 07 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:
[quote]
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole. You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're blurring lines again. As I said, terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers that are hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. If we can capture enemy soldiers and terrorists, we should. But if we can't, next best is to kill them. We cannot allow al-Qaida senior members who can't be capture and pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States to hide behind due process, which would allow them to help plan and carry out attacks unhindered. You forgot to say alleged again. Obviously I'm not for saving the lives of the guilty. Prove they're guilty in a court of their peers and then if you want to go to cruel and unusual punishment you can leave them in the middle of a desert and nuke it. That's not the issue here. I keep saying you shouldn't kill alleged terrorists and you keep replying that of course you should kill terrorists. I don't disagree with your point, I disagree with your characterisation of this as killing terrorists rather than alleged terrorists. Why do people fighting a war get a protection that no people fighting a war have ever gotten before in the history of war? You forgot to explain that part.
We're not fighting a tangible governed state. We're fighting a criminal organization that operates outside of the U.S. in a hostile region. This is unlike any 'war' in the history of war. Regardless of that, there are international laws that protect enemy combatants -- both written and spoken that have protected enemies in the history of war for centuries. If hitler had been caught alive by the allies in WWII he'd have been tried and receive the same death sentence every other war criminal had before him. In 1770, British soldiers fired upon an American crowd. Rather than immediately hang them as the despised enemies of the colonists, they were given a trial, found innocent and acquitted -- a demonstration of American rule of law prevailing above all else. Treatment of "terrorists" among many other recent historical enemies have been a gross perversion of American integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
