Drones - its a method - who cares?

[dblack]

I don't get to decide what other nations do. Let the UN or some other international organization take action against the US if they think we're violating international law.

I'm not concerned with international law. I'm asking you to consider whether you would be willing to grant foreign nations the power to assassinate their enemies in your country. If another nation did claim that kind of power, and your government was powerless to stop them - how would you react?

Do we really think imposing this kind of threat on the rest of the world will make us safer??

Your alternative is to de facto grant Al Qaeda what amounts to safe haven in certain places in the world where they can rebuild, retrain, and ultimately, if they choose, plan another 9/11 and carry it out,

AFTER which we would certainly authorize whoever is President to go after them, with all necessary force.

I don't recall offering an 'alternative'. I'm just asking if you support the right of other nations to do the same thing we're doing. I'd hope not. I certainly wouldn't. Which is a really good reason to NOT pose this kind of threat on the rest of the world. There will be blowback if we do.

 

[Contumacious]

".Ohhh, I see ......

) Our rulers are not a law unto themselves.

Our warmakers believe they are exempt from normal moral rules. Because they are at war, they get to suspend all decency, all the norms that govern the conduct and interaction of human beings in all other circumstances. The anodyne term "collateral damage," along with perfunctory and meaningless words of regret, are employed when innocent civilians, including children, are maimed and butchered. A private individual behaving this way would be called a sociopath. Give him a fancy title and a nice suit, and he becomes a statesman.

Let us pursue the subversive mission of applying the same moral rules against theft, kidnapping, and murder to our rulers that we apply to everyone else..."

I'm apologize for being so dense, but I cannot make heads-nor-tails of what you are trying to say here.

Are you attempting to dispute that we are within our rights to kill Enemy Combatants and Leaders when we are at-war?

For the life of me I can not understand how you are so naive to trust the bureaucrats to correctly and properly define "enemy combatants" and to declare that we are in a perpetual war.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack and contumacious are clearly not on the side of America law but solidly on that of the jihadists.

 

[Contumacious]

dblack and contumacious are clearly not on the side of America law but solidly on that of the jihadists.

Comrade Starkiev , the mother of all government supremacists , firmly believes in Stalinism, ie, the subordination of individuals rights to the interests of the communist party .

.

 

[Kondor3]

"...For the life of me I can not understand how you are so naive to trust the bureaucrats to correctly and properly define 'enemy combatants' and to declare that we are in a perpetual war." .

I do not recall saying that I DID trust our Elected Clowns NOR our entrenched bureaucracy to either (a) identify Enemy Combatants nor (2) decide when we are at-war and when we are not.

The presumption here is that we ARE in a state of war with these terrorists (as granted by Congress in their legislative support of both the previous Administration and the present one, in this context) and that such killings are a legitimate part of wartime operations.

If you want to debate whether or not it is time to call a halt to this War on Terror, then, by all means, open-up a thread on the subject, and you'll probably get a lot of participation.

Meanwhile...

I concede great deficiencies in both Target Identification and related Intelligence and Command-and-Control (Authorizations) and Accountability, and I will be happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder alongside you in any Call-for-Review of such particulars.

But, given your seeming evasiveness in providing a direct answer to my question so far, I am taking the liberty of marking you down as "OK" with such killings of Enemy Combatants WHEN undertaken as part of legitimate wartime operations.

If I am wrong, correct me.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You DO understand that our military is not obliged to provide due process to Enemy Combatants or Leaders whom it is trying to kill, as part of legitimate war operations, yes?.

Yes, i do understand.

Hitler had the same policy ....once he declared the Jews enemies of the state he incinerated and gassed them without having to be concerned about due process violations.

I gets your drift.

.

Whatever-in-the-world does Hitler and Nazism and the Holocaust have to do with this?

In our Revolutionary War, if you were a British Redcoat or Hessian mercenary, on the battlefield or not, if you came within the targeting-sights of a Continental Army trooper or Colonial Militiaman, you were not given 'due process'... you were killed.

In the War of 1812...

In the Mexican War...

In the Civil War...

In the Indian Wars...

In the Spanish American War...

In WWI

In WWII

In the Korean War...

In the Vietnam War...

In the Gulf War...

In the Iraq War...

In the Afghanistan War...

In the ongoing War on Terror, overseas...

If you are an Enemy Combatant or Enemy Leader, you are not given due process...

You are killed, as a legitimate act, in the course of war operations...

This is not a difficult concept, and it has 230+ years of jurisprudence standing behind it.

The technology du jour is mere detail.

Are you actually going to attempt to dispute such a statement?

Really?

Or was this just a misunderstanding?

lol your funny, the last "War" we had was WWII. and you do know about Executive Order 12333?
AMERICAN LAW AND POLICY ON ASSASSINATIONS OF FOREIGN LEADERS: THE PRACTICALITY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO

Executive Order 12333 prohibits the act of state-sponsored killing.2 This Order, which was drafted in the mid-1970s in the wake of revelations of government involvement in plots to kill several foreign leaders, has been maintained by every administration since President Ford.

 

[Kondor3]

"...lol your funny, the last 'War' we had was WWII..."

Declared... un-declared... tomato... tomahhhto... whatever... war is war... Literalism will not be of much use to you in any practical discussion in this context.

Strike One.

"...and you do know about Executive Order 12333?..."

The interesting thing about Executive Orders, unlike Federal statute, is that they are subject to reinterpretation or override by subsequent Executives, yes?

And it may be conveniently and reasonably argued that a Kill (by drone or otherwise) undertaken as part of wartime operations does not constitute an Assassination, anyway, from either a Legal nor an Ethical vantage point.

Executive Order 12333 is silent concerning Kills of Enemy Combatants and Leaders undertaken as part of wartime operations.

Strike Two.

"...lol your funny..."

Yeppers... like anybody else, I have my moments.

Next slide, please...

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not concerned with international law. I'm asking you to consider whether you would be willing to grant foreign nations the power to assassinate their enemies in your country. If another nation did claim that kind of power, and your government was powerless to stop them - how would you react?

Do we really think imposing this kind of threat on the rest of the world will make us safer??

Your alternative is to de facto grant Al Qaeda what amounts to safe haven in certain places in the world where they can rebuild, retrain, and ultimately, if they choose, plan another 9/11 and carry it out,

AFTER which we would certainly authorize whoever is President to go after them, with all necessary force.

I don't recall offering an 'alternative'. I'm just asking if you support the right of other nations to do the same thing we're doing. I'd hope not. I certainly wouldn't. Which is a really good reason to NOT pose this kind of threat on the rest of the world. There will be blowback if we do.

Hopefully, the blowback when it arrives will be on a scale of Boston in 2013 and not that of Yemen in 2009:

"Amnesty International has released images of a US-manufactured cruise missile that carried cluster munitions, apparently taken following an attack on an alleged al-Qa’ida training camp in Yemen that killed 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children.

"The 17 December 2009 attack on the community of al-Ma'jalah in the Abyan area in the south of Yemen killed 55 people including 14 alleged members of al-Qa’ida.

Obviously the profit margin on cruise missiles trumps that of pressure cookers.

Images of missile and cluster munitions point to US role in fatal attack in Yemen | Amnesty International

 

[Kondor3]

"...The 17 December 2009 attack on the community of al-Ma'jalah in the Abyan area in the south of Yemen killed 55 people including 14 alleged members of al-Qa’ida..."

Was it a base for terrorist operations?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Simple concepts to complicated for you?..."

Sometimes... sometimes... like anybody else on the face of the planet, I can be as dumb as a box-o-rocks sometimes, but this is not one of those times.

"...There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights..."

What part of the word "war" is giving you trouble today?

When a government selects individuals it disagrees with for execution the proper description is tyranny, not war. Until you grasp that, extremely simple, concept you cannot actually discuss the issues here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Simple concepts to complicated for you?..."

Let's turn the tables a bit and have some fun and put you to the test, in this very context.

1. You are the Drone Firing Authorization Person (President, General, whatever).

2. A known terrorist surfaces who has killed your countrymen and who is going to kill more.

3. He is overseas and out of your reach and the reach of the host-country police, except for your Drone technology.

4. This is the first time he's surfaced since he last killed Americans.

5. If you do not hit him now he will surely kill more Americans - many more - and soon.

6. If you do not hit him now he will go-to-ground and may never be accessible again.

7. Your Drone-Operating Command is asking you for permission to fire.

8. What is your decision? (a) "Fire", or (b) "Hold Fire"?

If I was a tyrant I would do just what you laid out. Hopefully, if I had that kind of power, I would resist the temptation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

How would you know?

Because what you said is nonsense, and you are not even capable of making an attempt to explain why it isn't nonsense. You're a classic head case. Things in your head that seem to be brilliant are simply looney to normal people.

If you were a normal person you would have seen the insult. Since you missed it, you have proven you are not normal, and that you have no idea what a normal person understands.

 

[Kondor3]

"...When a government selects individuals it disagrees with for execution the proper description is tyranny, not war. Until you grasp that, extremely simple, concept you cannot actually discuss the issues here."

And, conversely, until you can actually DEFINE the issue in-question (legitimate wartime operations versus domestic peacetime operations), you will be in similar dire straits. I am, apparently, in good company, in my predicament.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"...lol your funny, the last 'War' we had was WWII..."

Declared... un-declared... tomato... tomahhhto... whatever... war is war... Literalism will not be of much use to you in any practical discussion in this context.

Strike One.

"...and you do know about Executive Order 12333?..."

The interesting thing about Executive Orders, unlike Federal statute, is that they are subject to reinterpretation or override by subsequent Executives, yes?

And it may be conveniently and reasonably argued that a Kill (by drone or otherwise) undertaken as part of wartime operations does not constitute an Assassination, anyway, from either a Legal nor an Ethical vantage point.

Executive Order 12333 is silent concerning Kills of Enemy Combatants and Leaders undertaken as part of wartime operations.

Strike Two.

"...lol your funny..."

Yeppers... like anybody else, I have my moments.

Next slide, please...

Yea I know that about executive orders, but over riding this one. is also going against the Geneva Convention against due process. At leat Bush brought Sadam to trial instead of Obama out right killing bin laden.....and lol you cant run around and call everything a war to justify Assassinations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights. .

What exactly do you think a right is?

If I have the right to possess a gun in the US, but I move to a foreign country where I no longer have the right to possess that gun,

and could in fact be jailed for doing so,

how is it possible that I have the same exact rights in both countries?

What do you think a right is?

You have a right to breathe. If the government made a law that said breathing is illegal would that eliminate your right to breathe?

You have a right to be free. If the government passed a law that made everyone who thinks rights come from the government into slaves would that negate your right to be free?

Rights exist despite laws that say otherwise, everyone knows that, some idiots just want to pretend that they are smarter than people who can see the obvious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doubtful, in a practical sense, anyway, other than in a metaphorical fashion.

And, frankly, if it's a toss-up between killing a known Terrorist overseas before he can kill Americans, or letting him live in order to give you your metaphor, at the cost of American lives, my vote is to kill the Bad Guy and let you sort your disappointment as best you can.

Although I, like many who support the concept in-theory, think our Vetting Process and Controls and Accountability suck, and need one helluva lot more work, before I, or many, I suspect, can support such activities without a liberal sprinkling of caveats.

Simple concepts to complicated for you?

There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights. This is so fundamental that our entire body of law is based on it, and a specific process designed to minimize the ability of the government was written into the Constitution. When this process is ignored it violates everyone's rights.

Really? You're arguing that there is no constitutionally sound course available for the government to make war against an enemy of the US? All war is unconstitutional?

Did I say that?

Didn't think so. What I clearly said is that a process for doing that is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Since you have proved that you don't know what normal people understand, and that you cannot read, why are you trying to argue with me? Do you enjoy being totally gobsmacked and humiliated?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Yea I know that about executive orders, but over riding this one. is also going against the Geneva Convention against due process..."

You are attempting to move the goal-posts, attempting to shift the conversation from Executive Orders to the Geneva Conventions, but you may be hitting a brick wall on this one.

I am unaware of any prohibition on the part of the Geneva Convention which requires a Belligerent Power to give an Enemy Combatant or Leader 'due process' in the course of legitimate wartime operations designed to kill the enemy.

"...At leat Bush brought Sadam to trial instead of Obama out right killing bin laden...."

Saddam was literally squatting in a hole, $hitting his pants, when discovered; he had already been overthrown and was a fugitive and was no longer engaged in combat operations nor leadership of same at the time of his capture, and taking him into custody and turning him over to his own people for trial was the right thing to do, even in wartime, and it had the additional advantage of actually being possible - Saddam was within reach, without further risk to American lives.

Osama bin Laden was still directing combat operations and planning against American interests at the time he was killed while residing in Pakistan - a killing that Fearless Leader managed to accomplish after Shrub had so incompetently (or intentionally?) let him escape Tora Bora and flee across the border.

"...and lol you cant run around and call everything a war to justify Assassinations."

Is not the present Administration merely continuing the War on Terror declared by and authorized by the Bush Administration?

And, if that is true, then, we are, indeed, still at war, and, consequently, the killing of Enemy Combatants and Leaders is a legitimate act of wartime operations.

Sorry.

Strike Three.

A powerful swing, of course.

But still...

An "out"...

Better luck, next time up at-bat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights. This is so fundamental that our entire body of law is based on it, and a specific process designed to minimize the ability of the government was written into the Constitution. When this process is ignored it violates everyone's rights.

It's interesting you say that when the post before you said this:

They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights.

lol

Do you not understand the difference between violate and lose?

You can ignore my last post, you obviously are too stupid to actually enjoy being gobsmacked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights. This is so fundamental that our entire body of law is based on it, and a specific process designed to minimize the ability of the government was written into the Constitution. When this process is ignored it violates everyone's rights.

It's interesting you say that when the post before you said this:

They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights.

lol

Do you not understand the difference between violate and lose?

You can ignore my last post, you obviously are too stupid to actually enjoy being gobsmacked.

There is no difference depending on the usage. If the government kills you without cause or due process,

you will have both had your right to life violated and lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simple concepts to complicated for you?

There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights. This is so fundamental that our entire body of law is based on it, and a specific process designed to minimize the ability of the government was written into the Constitution. When this process is ignored it violates everyone's rights.

Really? You're arguing that there is no constitutionally sound course available for the government to make war against an enemy of the US? All war is unconstitutional?

Did I say that?

Didn't think so. What I clearly said is that a process for doing that is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Since you have proved that you don't know what normal people understand, and that you cannot read, why are you trying to argue with me? Do you enjoy being totally gobsmacked and humiliated?

Yes you did. If you were using the Constitution to back up your claim then you ought to know that it is the Constitution that supports the killing of enemy combatants.