Drones - its a method - who cares?

[NYcarbineer]

I don't love terrorists, I love rights.

When you invent rights for terrorists you must have some sort of perverse affection for them.

I'll respectfully ask you to consider the following point - and either explain why you reject it, or acknowledge that your claim here is flat out wrong.

We're not arguing for the rights of terrorists. We're arguing for the rights of everyone else. Once someone is determined to be an actual terrorist, they forfeit their rights in my view. Throw them in jail or kill them as fits their crime. The rights to due process protect people who are not yet determined to be guilty. What you are implicitly endorsing is government that can imprison or kill people without first proving them to be guilty.

You should not presume to speak others here because there are zealous arguments for imaginary rights for terrorists in this thread.

If you take away the authority of the Commander in Chief, including the authority he delegates to his subordinates, to evaluate and determine legitimate targets in the war he has been authorized, and in effect mandated, to prosecute,

you take away his ability to carry out the mandate, or simply, you take away his ability to wage the war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"We're not arguing for the rights of terrorists. We're arguing for the rights of everyone else."

Stupidest comments of the morning above. You want civil rights given to combatants in a war zone during a time of war?

Kid, the family and friends put the child at risk. They are at fault. Is DOJ investigating the family members here to see if abuse charges can be brought against them? I hope so.

The rights of the CIC are constitutional, and you can't abridge them.

 

[dblack]

When you invent rights for terrorists you must have some sort of perverse affection for them.

I'll respectfully ask you to consider the following point - and either explain why you reject it, or acknowledge that your claim here is flat out wrong.

We're not arguing for the rights of terrorists. We're arguing for the rights of everyone else. Once someone is determined to be an actual terrorist, they forfeit their rights in my view. Throw them in jail or kill them as fits their crime. The rights to due process protect people who are not yet determined to be guilty. What you are implicitly endorsing is government that can imprison or kill people without first proving them to be guilty.

You should not presume to speak others here because there are zealous arguments for imaginary rights for terrorists in this thread.

Fair enough, I'll speak for myself and those who agree with me. I haven't seen such claims here, however.

Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that defending the rights of accused terrorists is 'inventing rights for terrorists. Do you realize this is not the case?

If you take away the authority of the Commander in Chief, including the authority he delegates to his subordinates, to evaluate and determine legitimate targets in the war he has been authorized, and in effect mandated, to prosecute, you take away his ability to carry out the mandate, or simply, you take away his ability to wage the war.

Right. Which is why the terminology we use is so important. The authority of the CiC to wage war isn't in question. The problem is with the recent changes to the definition of war (put forth by the neo-cons and accepted by the corporatists) that put us in a state of perpetual warfare. The war powers granted to the executive branch are meant for emergencies - situations where the survival of the nation is at stake. They are not meant to be a permanent grant of power for the government to hunt down and kill anyone it perceives to be enemies. Is that what you're defending?

 

[Kondor3]

"...The authority of the CiC to wage war isn't in question. The problem is with the recent changes to the definition of war (put forth by the neo-cons and accepted by the corporatists) that put us in a state of perpetual warfare. The war powers granted to the executive branch are meant for emergencies - situations where the survival of the nation is at stake. They are not meant to be a permanent grant of power for the government to hunt down and kill anyone it perceives to be enemies."

Hmmmm... there is some considerable merit to this idea of Temporary versus Permanent War Powers in our present context... and it's worth a close look and some serious consideration.

In the sort of asymmetrical warfare in which we find ourselves engaged, in which enemy combatants and leaders and safe-houses and bases quickly pop-up on our scope and then disappear again as if part of some insane variation of a carnival whack-a-mole game, it is usually impractical to consult and certify and warrant with respect to a Kill Order, before the target disappears again and we miss an opportunity to take-out a dangerous enemy.

I completely understand - and largely continue to support - granting our political leadership the sort of War Powers that we see at-work here, but I also agree that we need controls and review and accountability outside the immediate chain of command, mostly on the macro level, but, to some lesser extent, perhaps, also on the micro level as well.

It's a puzzler alright - damned if we do and damned if we don't - but I can't help but think that there is some middle-ground in there someplace to be explored - which results in better controls and review and accountability, and which does a better job of reviewing and authorizing extensions to the granting and sustaining of War Powers - while avoiding the crippling or hobbling of our leadership and military to fight the Bad Guys as needed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The above is a discussion for never never land, with no application to real time scenarios and the law and Constitution that govern them.

Fact: the president has as CIC the duty to protect the country.

Fact: terrorists threaten our country from locations that cannot be easily reached.

Fact: no permanent v temporary "war" affects the two facts above.

Fact: drones will be continued to be used.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll respectfully ask you to consider the following point - and either explain why you reject it, or acknowledge that your claim here is flat out wrong.

We're not arguing for the rights of terrorists. We're arguing for the rights of everyone else. Once someone is determined to be an actual terrorist, they forfeit their rights in my view. Throw them in jail or kill them as fits their crime. The rights to due process protect people who are not yet determined to be guilty. What you are implicitly endorsing is government that can imprison or kill people without first proving them to be guilty.

You should not presume to speak others here because there are zealous arguments for imaginary rights for terrorists in this thread.

Fair enough, I'll speak for myself and those who agree with me. I haven't seen such claims here, however.

Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that defending the rights of accused terrorists is 'inventing rights for terrorists. Do you realize this is not the case?

If you take away the authority of the Commander in Chief, including the authority he delegates to his subordinates, to evaluate and determine legitimate targets in the war he has been authorized, and in effect mandated, to prosecute, you take away his ability to carry out the mandate, or simply, you take away his ability to wage the war.

Right. Which is why the terminology we use is so important. The authority of the CiC to wage war isn't in question. The problem is with the recent changes to the definition of war (put forth by the neo-cons and accepted by the corporatists) that put us in a state of perpetual warfare. The war powers granted to the executive branch are meant for emergencies - situations where the survival of the nation is at stake. They are not meant to be a permanent grant of power for the government to hunt down and kill anyone it perceives to be enemies. Is that what you're defending?

The Congress need only repeal the AUMF.

 

[dblack]

You should not presume to speak others here because there are zealous arguments for imaginary rights for terrorists in this thread.

Fair enough, I'll speak for myself and those who agree with me. I haven't seen such claims here, however.

Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that defending the rights of accused terrorists is 'inventing rights for terrorists. Do you realize this is not the case?

If you take away the authority of the Commander in Chief, including the authority he delegates to his subordinates, to evaluate and determine legitimate targets in the war he has been authorized, and in effect mandated, to prosecute, you take away his ability to carry out the mandate, or simply, you take away his ability to wage the war.

Right. Which is why the terminology we use is so important. The authority of the CiC to wage war isn't in question. The problem is with the recent changes to the definition of war (put forth by the neo-cons and accepted by the corporatists) that put us in a state of perpetual warfare. The war powers granted to the executive branch are meant for emergencies - situations where the survival of the nation is at stake. They are not meant to be a permanent grant of power for the government to hunt down and kill anyone it perceives to be enemies. Is that what you're defending?

The Congress need only repeal the AUMF.

Agreed. But that doesn't answer my question. Do you think they should? Or are you defending the continued state of perpetual war powers?

 

[nitroz]

Drones - its a method - who cares?

If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?

On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?


Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?

I say they should still keep ramping the drone strikes up.

 

[Borillar]

Drones - its a method - who cares?

If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?

On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?


Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?

I'm trying to understand the distinction. Apparently it is OK to use guns, tanks, helicopters, fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, mines, flame throwers, cluster bombs, artillery, bayonets, bare hands, and torture against your opponents, but you cross the line with drones?

I'm thinking it is just more ODS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any combatant and non=combatant enemy does not have rights of due process if the individual has placed himself beyond the reach of LEO and will not voluntarily surrender.

The US went into Panama and wiped out a government to arrest Noriega, what puts a guy in Yemen beyond the reach of any LEO?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, due process in particular. Search and seizure, and privacy concerns as well. During a genuine war, we authorize government to 'shoot first and ask questions later'. Based on the definition you've provided, I wouldn't be willing to grant that kind of power for 'asymmetrical warfare'. I'd need more clarity on who qualifies as an enemy, and what qualifies as a battlefield.

Far too much of what I've heard in support of the 'War on Terror' justifies turning the exceptions of wartime into persistent policy, allowing government the power to capture or kill anyone suspected of being an enemy of the state. That's a recipe for tyranny in my book.

Which is exactly why we need to stop pretending that Obama is following the rules. Especially when he literally announced that the largest theater for the use of drones, aka Pakistan, is exempted from the new rules he pretended he has.

Of course he is following the rules set out by Congress in the wake of 9-11.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If that were true he would not be changing the rules because he thought they lacked oversight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We didn't 'take out' a 16 year old.

Bush killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. Why did you support that?

We did, and I didn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find it amusing the Wingnuts and Funditards suddenly love Islamic Terrorists when Obama is the one killing them.

I don't love terrorists, I love rights.

When you invent rights for terrorists you must have some sort of perverse affection for them.

Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those who wish to guarantee rights for terrorists when those rights never existed before are enemies of America, plain and simple.

Windbag said in this thread that an Al Qaeda terrorist has the right to 'safe haven' simply by putting himself in proximity to children.

What we have are far right reactionaries who realize now that the reach of government can reach them where ever they try to hide when they break the law.

They realize all this silly talk of rising against the government will result in the death of their families as well as themselves.

Fact: the boy was abused by his family and friends, and died as a result of their abuse.

When the left said the same thing during Vietnam were they far right reactionaries, or are you just stupid?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fair enough, I'll speak for myself and those who agree with me. I haven't seen such claims here, however.

Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that defending the rights of accused terrorists is 'inventing rights for terrorists. Do you realize this is not the case?



Right. Which is why the terminology we use is so important. The authority of the CiC to wage war isn't in question. The problem is with the recent changes to the definition of war (put forth by the neo-cons and accepted by the corporatists) that put us in a state of perpetual warfare. The war powers granted to the executive branch are meant for emergencies - situations where the survival of the nation is at stake. They are not meant to be a permanent grant of power for the government to hunt down and kill anyone it perceives to be enemies. Is that what you're defending?

The Congress need only repeal the AUMF.

Agreed. But that doesn't answer my question. Do you think they should? Or are you defending the continued state of perpetual war powers?

The AUMF limits the president's power to going after al qaeda, supporters of al qaeda, nations that harbor al qaeda, etc. As long as those entities continue to exist, the justification to use force to defeat them continues.

Remember how Benghazi was, and is held up as proof that Obama had not defeated Al Qaeda? All the propaganda put out against the president that claimed he had declared victory over Al Qaeda - which he hadn't - and yet Al Qaeda was still around attacking American interests?

Which is it? Is the war over and thus the president's war powers have become unnecessary and need to be repealed, or, is the war still ongoing and the president needs the means to continue the fight?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't love terrorists, I love rights.

When you invent rights for terrorists you must have some sort of perverse affection for them.

Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth.

No they don't. There are millions who through their own actions have lost their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our prisons, for example, are full of people who have lost their right to liberty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you invent rights for terrorists you must have some sort of perverse affection for them.

Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth.

No they don't. There are millions who through their own actions have lost their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our prisons, for example, are full of people who have lost their right to liberty.

They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights. What happens is that the government has decreed that, in order to protect the idiots of the world from themselves, some people who do certain things are going to be punished for doing things idiots do not like.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth."

When a known terrorist is targeted to be killed by drone because he cannot be neutralized by any other means before he kills or harms Americans, whose rights are being violated when he is killed by drone-strike?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth.

No they don't. There are millions who through their own actions have lost their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our prisons, for example, are full of people who have lost their right to liberty.

They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights. What happens is that the government has decreed that, in order to protect the idiots of the world from themselves, some people who do certain things are going to be punished for doing things idiots do not like.

You're mentally retarded. Nothing you just said makes any sense to any normal person.

 

[dblack]

"...Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth."

When a known terrorist is targeted to be killed by drone because he cannot be neutralized by any other means before he kills or harms Americans, whose rights are being violated when he is killed by drone-strike?

It depends on whether he's actually a terrorist or just someone who looks like one, or someone who's been falsely accused, etc. Due process protects all of us from getting caught in a trap where we lose our freedom, or even our lives before we have a chance to prove our innocence.

I asked before, but I'll throw it out there again. Are you willing to grant other nations the same power you claim for ours? Should they be allowed to assassinate any of their enemies they believe may be hiding in our midst?