EPT"White Paper" from Ob DOJ justifies assassination - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
| ||
|
TheRealArtemis
687 Posts
On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote: Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... I get what you mean. But proving the intentions of terrorists are a hard thing to prove. I honestly dont mind this at all. I can see that it can get misused. But most likely, the people getting drone bombed have had serious intentions, and connections to terrorists. Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. | ||
|
AnomalySC2
United States2073 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44371 Posts
On February 07 2013 05:44 TheRealArtemis wrote: Claming that they will now use the drones to assassinate americans who oppose the goverments, is borderline tinfoil hattery. It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. | ||
|
TheRealArtemis
687 Posts
On February 07 2013 05:51 KwarK wrote: It has been used to assassinate Americans who violently oppose the government. That's the point of this topic. And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Xahhk
Canada540 Posts
On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote: And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. They killed the 16 year old son of a terrorist father in an attack separate from the killing of his father. With the justification that he COULD have been planning a terrorist plot against the united states. It's a scary precedent. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On February 07 2013 06:15 TheRealArtemis wrote: And? To me, violently opposing the goverment means gunning down people and assassinating members of the goverment, in an attempt to make it succumb. ¨ I still dont see any problems in this. If a person has problems with the current goverment, and chooses to bomb various facilities in order to get a point across, I honestly dont think that person should expect a fair trial. And that's just fucking scary. If they don't get a fair trial then you have no proof that they actually did what you accuse them of. And if it's so overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty, then there should be no problem with a quick trial that confirms all that. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:15 Myles wrote: And that's just fucking scary. If they don't get a fair trial then you have no proof that they actually did what you accuse them of. And if it's so overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty, then there should be no problem with a quick trial that confirms all that. That's not how it works unfortunately. I'm not saying I think forgoing a trial is a good idea, but any sort of judicial process would certainly take a noteworthy amount of time. And the creation of or extension of any sort of judicial panel to review drone strikes would almost certainly require congressional approval, and therefore the entire thing becomes even more complicated. | ||
|
pettter
Sweden1032 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:20 farvacola wrote: That's not how it works unfortunately. I'm not saying I think forgoing a trial is a good idea, but any sort of judicial process would certainly take a noteworthy amount of time. And the creation of or extension of any sort of judicial panel to review drone strikes would almost certainly require congressional approval, and therefore the entire thing becomes even more complicated. There was a judicial process started by al-Awlakis father that ran for years to get info on whether his son was an assassination target of the US or not. Then it was obvious. Then his 16 year old grandson was assassinated as well. Is that a "noteworthy amount of time"? | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:20 farvacola wrote: That's not how it works unfortunately. I'm not saying I think forgoing a trial is a good idea, but any sort of judicial process would certainly take a noteworthy amount of time. And the creation of or extension of any sort of judicial panel to review drone strikes would almost certainly require congressional approval, and therefore the entire thing becomes even more complicated. I don't disagree, and wasn't really talking about terrorists specifically, more the general notion that if you do(more specifically, accused) something absolutely heinous that you don't need a fair trial. And quick vs noteworthy comes down to personal definition really, but if they are so overwhelmingly guilty than I wouldn't think it'd be any longer than the Nuremberg Trials. Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:38 Myles wrote: Of course, that doesn't work for someone you can't capture and would attack you in the meantime anyways, but there definitely needs to be more oversight imo. It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions. Things would also change if someone else kills an American with a drone. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:43 coverpunch wrote: It'll happen. As soon as a Republican becomes president, a lot of people will do a 180 and start screaming about how America is out of control with drones and needs super strict and transparent rules. Democrats and Obama in particular built up a lot of credibility through their opposition to Bush, so that when Obama says someone deserved to be killed by a drone (and he doesn't feel the need to tell you why), people are much more willing to believe him than they were to believe Bush. The same has applied to harsh interrogation and covert missions. hasnt obama killed more people by drone attacks than bush? edit: yep Although the pace of strikes has slowed considerably this year, CIA attacks have struck Pakistan’s tribal areas on average once every five days during Obama’s first term – six times more than under George W Bush. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/03/the-reaper-presidency-obamas-300th-drone-strike-in-pakistan/ | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:36 pettter wrote: There was a judicial process started by al-Awlakis father that ran for years to get info on whether his son was an assassination target of the US or not. Then it was obvious. Then his 16 year old grandson was assassinated as well. Is that a "noteworthy amount of time"? I've already said that with the current set up, bad intelligence will almost certainly result in collateral damage. Someone in the US intelligence community likely improperly communicated to his/her superior that the grandson was beginning terrorist activities. These sorts of situations are why I think we need more transparency, so that we can see enough success to warrant this sort of meaningless death. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote: hasnt obama killed more people by drone attacks than bush? 5x more, at last count. EDIT: in fairness, a lot of the increase is both technological improvements and the realization that the public doesn't just think drones are legal, they're quite comfortable with drones killing terrorists. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:46 coverpunch wrote: 5x more, at last count. EDIT: in fairness, a lot of the increase is both technological improvements and the realization that the public doesn't just think drones are legal, they're quite comfortable with drones killing terrorists. How many people does that come to? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Using the most pessimistic estimates: Drone strikes under Bush killed about 500 people. Drones under Obama are at about 2700, with 37-44 already killed in 2013. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:50 coverpunch wrote: Source Drone strikes under Bush killed about 500 people. Drones under Obama are at about 2700, with 37-44 already killed in 2013. Thanks. Now if we are to look at that 2700 number, replete with collateral damage, unintended victims and successful hits, in addition to Obama's handling of military conflicts at large (specifically in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya), is there enough significance to merit a difference in comparison to Bush? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
At the risk of pushing the discussion away from the OP, I'd say the Obama Doctrine has been a compromise between Bush and Clinton. Obama doesn't risk ground troops and hasn't committed the US to expensive new occupations, but he is still actively nation-building and relentlessly pursuing Al Qaeda to every dirty corner of the Earth. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 07 2013 08:07 coverpunch wrote: There are comparisons to make with Bush but I don't know how helpful that is to the discussion at large. The best political point IMO is that Obama has certainly not been "soft on terror" and that criticism has evaporated. At the risk of pushing the discussion away from the OP, I'd say the Obama Doctrine has been a compromise between Bush and Clinton. Obama doesn't risk ground troops and hasn't committed the US to expensive new occupations, but he is still actively nation-building and relentlessly pursuing Al Qaeda to every dirty corner of the Earth. I agree, though I think one can make the case that Obama, former Secretary of State Clinton, and his JCS practiced and are practicing a different sort of nation-building than the one put into action by Bush. Ultimately, I'm not sure you are entirely right in predicting that a shift in drone strike policy need come from a Republican, but at this point such an estimate amounts to fortune telling. I'll be very curious to see how Kerry changes things up. | ||
| ||
