How do you feel about, for instance, Nicaraguan secret service members carrying out a hit on Oliver North, or perhaps Regan (while he was alive)? That tag team doubtless killed more Nicaraguans than Osama Bin Laden killed Americans. Nonetheless, we have certain standards for international law and jurisdiction which frown on those sorts of forays.
I don't think you can justify killing elected leaders. For that reason somebody like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be off limits even if we were to go to war with Iran.
Unlike a dictator whose actions are his own I think an elected leaders actions are the countries actions as a whole.
The majority of the dictators make great efforts to label themselves as "elected", including our buddy Mahmoud. So, that's a fairly gray standard.
Yeah, but I think you have to err on the side of caution.
The idea that you can arrest people who are surrounded by a well armed army is pretty ridiculous.
What do you think we do with crime bosses?
Yeah, but those well armed armies don't generally have a commitment to completely destroy our country and/or kill any citizen of ours that they have an opportunity to. So let's not play this game of being intentionally ignorant of obvious distinctions.
Your vitriol is off-topic; the relevant similarity here is in degrees of personal security and how that interacts with our capability to apprehend the subject.
The relevant similarities and distinctions are the similarities and distinctions that apply. Noting that the people we're discussing are seeking the destruction of us, is not off-topic, as badly as that fact probably damages your opinions.
The idea that you can arrest people who are surrounded by a well armed army is pretty ridiculous.
What do you think we do with crime bosses?
Yeah, but those well armed armies don't generally have a commitment to completely destroy our country and/or kill any citizen of ours that they have an opportunity to. So let's not play this game of being intentionally ignorant of obvious distinctions.
Your vitriol is off-topic; the relevant similarity here is in degrees of personal security and how that interacts with our capability to apprehend the subject.
The relevant similarities and distinctions are the similarities and distinctions that apply. Noting that the people we're discussing are seeking the destruction of us, is not off-topic, as badly as that fact probably damages your opinions.
Should be noted: they don't have the capacity to actually accomplish their goals, but they can sure as hell scare us into doing all kinds of horrid things to "fight them."
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If your talking about criminal enterprises outside america, then yes we assassinated Pablo Escobar.
Not a huge fan of assassinations in any case, but again, not an American citizen. American citizen represents a substantial, and dangerous, enlargement of executive authority.
Well then we come back to mafia bosses. And again they are not guarded by armies. They are guarded at best by two men with body armor and hidden smgs and thats to protect them from rivals not from the police. If indicted they will either turn themselves in the next day with there high priced lawyers or in rare cases they run in which case they won't even have the two aforementioned bodyguards.
Thats a completely different situation then the people this thread is talking about.
edit: And really these people are essentially resisting arrest, which even on American soil will get you killed pretty quick.
Yeah, it's an astronomic chance for them to actually succeed in the task. But I think it's foolish to brush them off as incapable of causing a lot of damage. It'd be even more foolish and sadly ironic to destroy our own country in the attempt to destroy them, but yeah, we can't just plug our ears and pretend they're not there.
I should I add that I think in public discourse we overhype terrorism and thus make it a bigger problem. I think we should be as relentless as we can be in operations, but we need to tone down the "OMFG!" reactions.
Hoz on
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
If your talking about criminal enterprises outside america, then yes we assassinated Pablo Escobar.
Not a huge fan of assassinations in any case, but again, not an American citizen. American citizen represents a substantial, and dangerous, enlargement of executive authority.
It's okay, Congress has a solution, all we need to do is have the ability to expatriate anybody who isn't on American soil and we think is aiding terrorists. What we really need to do is acknowledge a foreign state of Terrorististan, and make any terrorist groups "political subdivisions" of said foreign state. Boom, now if you "declare allegiance" to them you get auto-expatriated and we don't even need any new-fangled legislation, just the stuff we came up with when we were dealing with the original axis in 1940.
Noting that the people we're discussing are seeking the destruction of us, is not off-topic, as badly as that fact probably damages your opinions.
Due process: have you heard of it? It's this right that we have. And, like most rights that we have, the president can't make it go away with a pen-wave. If he could, he would be a king, not a president, and they would hardly count as rights at all.
I am in any case confident that we have the ability to fight terrorism within the confines of the law; after all, in all the years leading up to September 11, what did Al-Qaeda manage to do to us? Blew up a bomb on the USS Cole, killing 17? Seventeen servicemen on a warship in foreign waters--a tragedy, certainly, but not an indication that we need sweeping extra-judicial measures, or authorized death-squads. And this was even before we decided to go all war on terror.
I'm infinitely more worried about the rights of the American people being frittered away than I am about being killed by a terrorist.
This has a high abuse potential, but if used correctly, is absolutely fine and reasonable. You don't arrest someone who is armed with military grade arms in a fortified position deep in enemy territory in a foreign country, regardless of what their citizenry is. Unless you need them for intel to the point of being willing to sacrifice lives to get them, you just drop a missile on them and call it a day.
You make it sound as if this is a military action on a battlefield. But we've always had the power to kill people fairly indiscriminately in those situations. What is special about this is that it's not a military action on a battlefield, but rather a questionably legal police action.
There certainly is quite a difference between authorizing deadly force in the course of apprehension, which, as far as I know, is routine, and ordering an assassination. If you look at a cop funny and/or are a minority during the course of an arrest then they'll shoot your face off, so that's not news. An assassination of an American citizen, however, ultimately abrogates the legal system entirely.
And, in case you were curious, I'm not so hot on assassinations of random brown people either. However, this does merit a special sort of alarm, because assassinating random brown people has a long and little-told history in the United States executive, whereas hits on American citizens do not. That would represent a significant expansion of executive power, which, if anything, should be retreating.
What would have happened, we can wonder, if during the Cold War the President determined himself to have the power to assassinate, without trial, Americans who the CIA had determined to be acting with or in support of international Communism? Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam and wore a red peasant dress to commemorate their struggle. What, exactly, would we do to her?
If police cannot reasonably apprehend the target without military assistance, it is a military action. If used correctly, the policy isn't a replacement for police, it's a replacement for having infantry do the same thing.
I acknowledge a high potential for abuse, which might counter indict it in practice, but in theory, it's an excellent and reasonable policy.
It's fundamentally a criminal justice matter, or should be. The obvious problem is when foreign country X isn't helpful or is actively assisting international terrorists. Sadly, that strikes me as a no-win situation.
You can either bomb them/perform drone attacks as we have in Pakistan in which case you inevitably miss and make even more people angry with you, invade and try to install a government less likely to create the kinds of conditions that inspire terrorism but then you look like occupiers and make even more people angry with you as we've done in Afghanistan, or you could just kind of be vigilant and try to stop things as they happen in your own country, but you'll inevitably miss one.
Long term, I really do think the best option is a relatively hands off one where you're performing less and less of the actions that make people hate you and increasing things like foreign aid budgets (we're fucking misers as a percentage of GDP).
There's a lot to be said for not doing things to increase support for terrorism, but it's worth noting that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, among others, are fundamentally evil organizations which cannot coexist with the United States. While we might not use military actions against them, anything short of taking significant steps (economic sanctions, travel restrictions, ICC warrants) to oppose them would be inherently immoral.
Al Queda absolutely can and will co-exist with the US.
You might say that their existence depends upon the US.
It's ridiculous to say that the US must take particular steps to oppose them. Why?
They are no threat to the US whatsoever. They do threaten US citizens, but that threat needs to be realistically weighed against other threats to US citizens (I'm sure the tobacco lobby causes far more deaths).
They are no threat to the US whatsoever. They do threaten US citizens
I'm not sure you're not contradicting yourself there. I understand what you're saying, though.
I have no personal problem with the order, and to be sure, this is all based on an Executive Order, signed by the president, as long as it defines the actions of said citizen as treasonous. It is, legally, the only crime directly punishable by death, as written in the US Constitution and already applied to citizens (Article 3 Section 3). And as I understand the wording (I'm not a lawyer, well not yet...) the Executive would still have to advise the ten person bi-partisan Congressional Security Panel with two witnesses to legally declare someone as acting "treasonous."
jbragg on
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home." - Good Omens"
Al Queda absolutely can and will co-exist with the US.
You might say that their existence depends upon the US.
It's ridiculous to say that the US must take particular steps to oppose them. Why?
They are no threat to the US whatsoever. They do threaten US citizens, but that threat needs to be realistically weighed against other threats to US citizens (I'm sure the tobacco lobby causes far more deaths).
Because it's morally wrong to ignore evil? And bad public policy besides.
That, and a threat to US citizens is a threat to the US. The concept of the US is a mere shorthand for the combined interests of all US citizens. I'd agree that terrorism isn't the most pressing issue for the US today, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.
This might be simplistic, but why not announce that a person is on an "assassination" list.
So the government publishes a list of everyone that they might assassinate. If they surrender themselves, they get the benefit of legal council and due process. Otherwise they might find a missile in their bedroom.
Advantages are that the President doesn't get to abuse the power. Everyone knows what the government is up to and get to protest/laud the decision. Also the victim gets a chance surrender to the US/Surrender to another body (UN??)
Disadvantages - It might inflame the situation, cause their supporters to steel themselves. But I think assassination would have the same effect.
But you need to strike a balance between protecting your country and protect your soul (or morality, ethics, whatever it's called).
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
Yea that's a goosy statement, however I will say that if we're okay with assassinating a brown guy from Turkmenistan then I'm okay with assassinating a US citizen. If you're considered bad enough to get an official hit on you citizenship shouldn't provide a magic cloak against that.
This might be simplistic, but why not announce that a person is on an "assassination" list.
So the government publishes a list of everyone that they might assassinate. If they surrender themselves, they get the benefit of legal council and due process. Otherwise they might find a missile in their bedroom.
Advantages are that the President doesn't get to abuse the power. Everyone knows what the government is up to and get to protest/laud the decision. Also the victim gets a chance surrender to the US/Surrender to another body (UN??)
Disadvantages - It might inflame the situation, cause their supporters to steel themselves. But I think assassination would have the same effect.
But you need to strike a balance between protecting your country and protect your soul (or morality, ethics, whatever it's called).
This. Because really, if there were a guy holed up in the back woods of Nebraska planning to bomb American citizens, we'd issue a warrant for his arrest, give him a chance to come peacefully, and then starve him out or go in with force if he refused. The fact that he's in country X rather than Nebraska doesn't seem like it should make much of a difference, except insofar as country X might be ticked off about it. Just killing them without due warning just seems rather dirty.
Corlis on
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
every war and fight ever waged has taken place on this planet
I guess this assassination stuff is one of the problems you get when you declare a war on a thing or idea (like terrorism or drugs) instead of a sovereign nation. If you're at war with drugs, I guess killing drug lords without submitting them to judicial process isn't murder. Ditto with killing your own citizens for the sake of fighting terrorism.
I find it unpleasant that so many people are willing to jump onboard with assassination of American citizens because a group has declared the intention of destroying America. Reminds me of all the people who are ok with anything that happens to palestinians because of charters declaring the intention of destroying Israel, however unlikely that is.
Terrorists pose far less of a threat to America than the self destructive reactions we have to them. Could, ten years ago, any of us have imagined that the United States would be conducting warrantless surveillance or planning outright assassination of their fellow citizens, indefinite detainment and torture of anyone, let alone citizens of some of their closest allies, or that a huge amount of the American populace would be onboard with it? I sure didn't see it coming. All in the name of saving America.
This might be simplistic, but why not announce that a person is on an "assassination" list.
So the government publishes a list of everyone that they might assassinate. If they surrender themselves, they get the benefit of legal council and due process. Otherwise they might find a missile in their bedroom.
Advantages are that the President doesn't get to abuse the power. Everyone knows what the government is up to and get to protest/laud the decision. Also the victim gets a chance surrender to the US/Surrender to another body (UN??)
Disadvantages - It might inflame the situation, cause their supporters to steel themselves. But I think assassination would have the same effect.
But you need to strike a balance between protecting your country and protect your soul (or morality, ethics, whatever it's called).
That's a good way to view it.
We really have a bad set of options. In Pakistan we can't go in on foot because it would be an international political shitstorm involving somewhat of an ally. But they're not so much of an ally that they're willing to put their guys on the line to do the job for us and go into North Waziristan with their military to capture these guys themselves. Whether it's will or capacity that's preventing them from doing this is irrelevant, they're just not doing it.
So technically you could say N. Waziristan isn't a battlefield and we have no legitimate right to kill anyone there, basically giving a pass to entire terrorist organizations that are hiding out there, some with even American citizens.
I don't know to what extent this applies to Yemen, the country this cocksucker Anwar is in, but it can apply to any foreign country. We can't invade every country we think terrorists are in, but we also can't just let them operate with impunity.
Or we can, because terrorism doesn't kill as many people as heart disease, right? o_O
That article does not show a single example of this.
It just says that Obama is not insane enough to throw Dubya in jail.
Did I like that incorrectly?
"These violations began under the Bush administration and have continued and, in a lot of cases, have grown worse under the Obama Administration," Mr. Buttar said.
It is not a position paper, by any means, but it addresses the question concerning Obama's record on civil rights vs. Bush. Specifically, it points out that abuses of due process, etc., which were made legal post-9/11 have been both upheld and strengthened under the current administration.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
That sniping an officer on a battlefield is different from sniping someone out on a walk, presumably because in the second scenario a lawful arrest would be possible.
Could you edit that so that the wording is clearer?
You're making it out like I am against shooting someone pointing a gun at me and firing, or about to fire on someone else. I am against targeted hits.
Authorization of deadly force is not the same thing as an order of deadly force. It is not a hit. It is acknowledging that it is worth deadly force (a shoplifter is not) and that you will most likely need to apply deadly force (crazy psycho serial killer COULD kiss the ground and cooperate, but yeah don't base your weekend on it). It also means that if the option is between the target escaping and the target dying you go for dying because they are going to lead to more harm otherwise.
How are you parsing this with the NY Times article calling it a 'targetted hit'. That language, nor any of the corroborating language, sounds like simple authorization of deadly force.
Feral, this applies to you as well.
Argument from authority much?
The NYTimes chose its wording poorly. Nothing else supports the idea of this being assassinations.
Al Queda absolutely can and will co-exist with the US.
You might say that their existence depends upon the US.
It's ridiculous to say that the US must take particular steps to oppose them. Why?
They are no threat to the US whatsoever. They do threaten US citizens, but that threat needs to be realistically weighed against other threats to US citizens (I'm sure the tobacco lobby causes far more deaths).
Because people who die from smoking have some amount of choice in the matter, but people who die from terrorist bombings have zero choice.
There is no "acceptable amount" of terrorism.
If Al Qaeda wants to restructure themselves in order to no longer use violent terrorist tactics, then I have no problem with coexisting alongside them. As long as they are involved in blowing up innocent people, though, then they should be fought.
Al Queda absolutely can and will co-exist with the US.
You might say that their existence depends upon the US.
It's ridiculous to say that the US must take particular steps to oppose them. Why?
They are no threat to the US whatsoever. They do threaten US citizens, but that threat needs to be realistically weighed against other threats to US citizens (I'm sure the tobacco lobby causes far more deaths).
Because people who die from smoking have some amount of choice in the matter, but people who die from terrorist bombings have zero choice.
There is no "acceptable amount" of terrorism.
If Al Qaeda wants to restructure themselves in order to no longer use violent terrorist tactics, then I have no problem with coexisting alongside them. As long as they are involved in blowing up innocent people, though, then they should be fought.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
That sniping an officer on a battlefield is different from sniping someone out on a walk, presumably because in the second scenario a lawful arrest would be possible.
Predator drones can arrest people now?
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
It is not a position paper, by any means, but it addresses the question concerning Obama's record on civil rights vs. Bush. Specifically, it points out that abuses of due process, etc., which were made legal post-9/11 have been both upheld and strengthened under the current administration.
Al Queda absolutely can and will co-exist with the US.
You might say that their existence depends upon the US.
It's ridiculous to say that the US must take particular steps to oppose them. Why?
They are no threat to the US whatsoever. They do threaten US citizens, but that threat needs to be realistically weighed against other threats to US citizens (I'm sure the tobacco lobby causes far more deaths).
Because people who die from smoking have some amount of choice in the matter, but people who die from terrorist bombings have zero choice.
There is no "acceptable amount" of terrorism.
If Al Qaeda wants to restructure themselves in order to no longer use violent terrorist tactics, then I have no problem with coexisting alongside them. As long as they are involved in blowing up innocent people, though, then they should be fought.
Al Qaeda: the other white whale.
Which is sort of my point.
One little organization is not the root of all evil. If Al Qaeda decides to stop being aq threat, we don't need to continue hunting them down to get revenge. If the Al Qaeda threat becomes so small that we can deal with them SOLELY deffensively, then I think we should cease making proactive straikes against them.
I don't support the "war on terror", what I support is not letting innocent citizens die and callign it "aceptable losses"
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
That sniping an officer on a battlefield is different from sniping someone out on a walk, presumably because in the second scenario a lawful arrest would be possible.
Predator drones can arrest people now?
No, that is the point. That killing your own citizen without due process in a non-combat scenario is not... ideal.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
That sniping an officer on a battlefield is different from sniping someone out on a walk, presumably because in the second scenario a lawful arrest would be possible.
Predator drones can arrest people now?
No, that is the point. That killing your own citizen without due process in a non-combat scenario is not... ideal.
The larger issue, in my mind, is how we deal with non-combat zones in general.
I have to say, I have a slight issue with the notion that it should be easier to kill a non-American than an American. They are BOTH human beings. If a person is enough of a threat to necessitate killing them, I'm not sure that their citizenship should matter. Presumably, we're talking about a guy who, if we asked him to come in for questioning, would shoot at the guy asking.
Evander on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I have to say, I have a slight issue with the notion that it should be easier to kill a non-American than an American. They are BOTH human beings.
It matters because we aren't writing the law ourselves: no invitation has been issued to penny arcade forums to re-draw the Constitution. We're talking about how the executive branch is responding to the Constitution that we already have in place, and that constitution guarantees its citizens access to due process of the law.
I have to say, I have a slight issue with the notion that it should be easier to kill a non-American than an American. They are BOTH human beings.
It matters because we aren't writing the law ourselves: no invitation has been issued to penny arcade forums to re-draw the Constitution. We're talking about how the executive branch is responding to the Constitution that we already have in place, and that constitution guarantees its citizens access to due process of the law.
Not under all circumstances.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Its no more insidious to kill an American suspected of terrorism outside a conflict than to kill a Pakistani suspected of terrorism out a conflict. Though I guess it must be threatening to have the American Governments complete disregard for due process be extended to its own citizens.
Qliphoth on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I have to say, I have a slight issue with the notion that it should be easier to kill a non-American than an American. They are BOTH human beings.
It matters because we aren't writing the law ourselves: no invitation has been issued to penny arcade forums to re-draw the Constitution. We're talking about how the executive branch is responding to the Constitution that we already have in place, and that constitution guarantees its citizens access to due process of the law.
Not under all circumstances.
The only exception is servicemen during a time of active duty.
The 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's notable that non-citizens actually enjoy the same protections from the federal government that citizens do.
Posts
Yeah, but I think you have to err on the side of caution.
Should be noted: they don't have the capacity to actually accomplish their goals, but they can sure as hell scare us into doing all kinds of horrid things to "fight them."
Well then we come back to mafia bosses. And again they are not guarded by armies. They are guarded at best by two men with body armor and hidden smgs and thats to protect them from rivals not from the police. If indicted they will either turn themselves in the next day with there high priced lawyers or in rare cases they run in which case they won't even have the two aforementioned bodyguards.
Thats a completely different situation then the people this thread is talking about.
edit: And really these people are essentially resisting arrest, which even on American soil will get you killed pretty quick.
I should I add that I think in public discourse we overhype terrorism and thus make it a bigger problem. I think we should be as relentless as we can be in operations, but we need to tone down the "OMFG!" reactions.
It's okay, Congress has a solution, all we need to do is have the ability to expatriate anybody who isn't on American soil and we think is aiding terrorists. What we really need to do is acknowledge a foreign state of Terrorististan, and make any terrorist groups "political subdivisions" of said foreign state. Boom, now if you "declare allegiance" to them you get auto-expatriated and we don't even need any new-fangled legislation, just the stuff we came up with when we were dealing with the original axis in 1940.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Due process: have you heard of it? It's this right that we have. And, like most rights that we have, the president can't make it go away with a pen-wave. If he could, he would be a king, not a president, and they would hardly count as rights at all.
I am in any case confident that we have the ability to fight terrorism within the confines of the law; after all, in all the years leading up to September 11, what did Al-Qaeda manage to do to us? Blew up a bomb on the USS Cole, killing 17? Seventeen servicemen on a warship in foreign waters--a tragedy, certainly, but not an indication that we need sweeping extra-judicial measures, or authorized death-squads. And this was even before we decided to go all war on terror.
I'm infinitely more worried about the rights of the American people being frittered away than I am about being killed by a terrorist.
If police cannot reasonably apprehend the target without military assistance, it is a military action. If used correctly, the policy isn't a replacement for police, it's a replacement for having infantry do the same thing.
I acknowledge a high potential for abuse, which might counter indict it in practice, but in theory, it's an excellent and reasonable policy.
There's a lot to be said for not doing things to increase support for terrorism, but it's worth noting that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, among others, are fundamentally evil organizations which cannot coexist with the United States. While we might not use military actions against them, anything short of taking significant steps (economic sanctions, travel restrictions, ICC warrants) to oppose them would be inherently immoral.
You might say that their existence depends upon the US.
It's ridiculous to say that the US must take particular steps to oppose them. Why?
They are no threat to the US whatsoever. They do threaten US citizens, but that threat needs to be realistically weighed against other threats to US citizens (I'm sure the tobacco lobby causes far more deaths).
I'm not sure you're not contradicting yourself there. I understand what you're saying, though.
I have no personal problem with the order, and to be sure, this is all based on an Executive Order, signed by the president, as long as it defines the actions of said citizen as treasonous. It is, legally, the only crime directly punishable by death, as written in the US Constitution and already applied to citizens (Article 3 Section 3). And as I understand the wording (I'm not a lawyer, well not yet...) the Executive would still have to advise the ten person bi-partisan Congressional Security Panel with two witnesses to legally declare someone as acting "treasonous."
Because it's morally wrong to ignore evil? And bad public policy besides.
That, and a threat to US citizens is a threat to the US. The concept of the US is a mere shorthand for the combined interests of all US citizens. I'd agree that terrorism isn't the most pressing issue for the US today, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.
subpoena his trial
then when he doesn't show up, the fourteenth amendment is void insofar as presence, and we can try him in absentia
i have zero problem with state sponsored assassination, presuming due process
edit: but that defeats the point :P
So the government publishes a list of everyone that they might assassinate. If they surrender themselves, they get the benefit of legal council and due process. Otherwise they might find a missile in their bedroom.
Advantages are that the President doesn't get to abuse the power. Everyone knows what the government is up to and get to protest/laud the decision. Also the victim gets a chance surrender to the US/Surrender to another body (UN??)
Disadvantages - It might inflame the situation, cause their supporters to steel themselves. But I think assassination would have the same effect.
But you need to strike a balance between protecting your country and protect your soul (or morality, ethics, whatever it's called).
There is absolutely no difference between this and using snipers to take out enemy officers.
Wow.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Well, yes.
Obama differs greatly on social policy, but the Bush-era "War on Terror" laws have been expanded under this administration.
A link that I haven't seen here yet.
That article does not show a single example of this.
It just says that Obama is not insane enough to throw Dubya in jail.
The whole planet is a battlefield?
every war and fight ever waged has taken place on this planet
I find it unpleasant that so many people are willing to jump onboard with assassination of American citizens because a group has declared the intention of destroying America. Reminds me of all the people who are ok with anything that happens to palestinians because of charters declaring the intention of destroying Israel, however unlikely that is.
Terrorists pose far less of a threat to America than the self destructive reactions we have to them. Could, ten years ago, any of us have imagined that the United States would be conducting warrantless surveillance or planning outright assassination of their fellow citizens, indefinite detainment and torture of anyone, let alone citizens of some of their closest allies, or that a huge amount of the American populace would be onboard with it? I sure didn't see it coming. All in the name of saving America.
We really have a bad set of options. In Pakistan we can't go in on foot because it would be an international political shitstorm involving somewhat of an ally. But they're not so much of an ally that they're willing to put their guys on the line to do the job for us and go into North Waziristan with their military to capture these guys themselves. Whether it's will or capacity that's preventing them from doing this is irrelevant, they're just not doing it.
So technically you could say N. Waziristan isn't a battlefield and we have no legitimate right to kill anyone there, basically giving a pass to entire terrorist organizations that are hiding out there, some with even American citizens.
I don't know to what extent this applies to Yemen, the country this cocksucker Anwar is in, but it can apply to any foreign country. We can't invade every country we think terrorists are in, but we also can't just let them operate with impunity.
Or we can, because terrorism doesn't kill as many people as heart disease, right? o_O
Did I like that incorrectly?
It is not a position paper, by any means, but it addresses the question concerning Obama's record on civil rights vs. Bush. Specifically, it points out that abuses of due process, etc., which were made legal post-9/11 have been both upheld and strengthened under the current administration.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
That sniping an officer on a battlefield is different from sniping someone out on a walk, presumably because in the second scenario a lawful arrest would be possible.
Argument from authority much?
The NYTimes chose its wording poorly. Nothing else supports the idea of this being assassinations.
Because people who die from smoking have some amount of choice in the matter, but people who die from terrorist bombings have zero choice.
There is no "acceptable amount" of terrorism.
If Al Qaeda wants to restructure themselves in order to no longer use violent terrorist tactics, then I have no problem with coexisting alongside them. As long as they are involved in blowing up innocent people, though, then they should be fought.
I was really hoping we'd not be in for an eternal war, but whatever.
Al Qaeda: the other white whale.
Predator drones can arrest people now?
That doesn't say anything.
That is a Fox News-quality statement.
Without specific examples it's just bluster.
Which is sort of my point.
One little organization is not the root of all evil. If Al Qaeda decides to stop being aq threat, we don't need to continue hunting them down to get revenge. If the Al Qaeda threat becomes so small that we can deal with them SOLELY deffensively, then I think we should cease making proactive straikes against them.
I don't support the "war on terror", what I support is not letting innocent citizens die and callign it "aceptable losses"
No, that is the point. That killing your own citizen without due process in a non-combat scenario is not... ideal.
The larger issue, in my mind, is how we deal with non-combat zones in general.
I have to say, I have a slight issue with the notion that it should be easier to kill a non-American than an American. They are BOTH human beings. If a person is enough of a threat to necessitate killing them, I'm not sure that their citizenship should matter. Presumably, we're talking about a guy who, if we asked him to come in for questioning, would shoot at the guy asking.
It matters because we aren't writing the law ourselves: no invitation has been issued to penny arcade forums to re-draw the Constitution. We're talking about how the executive branch is responding to the Constitution that we already have in place, and that constitution guarantees its citizens access to due process of the law.
Not under all circumstances.
The only exception is servicemen during a time of active duty.
The 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's notable that non-citizens actually enjoy the same protections from the federal government that citizens do.