Drones - its a method - who cares?

[Quantum Windbag]

Mine.

As long as dimwits don't think their rights are being violated, then I guess it is all okay. They seem to forget the government doesn't care who is being targeted, the government doesn't care if US citizens, or anyone else is killed. They only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist.

No one seems to realize, they can easily target us in the name of terrorism.

Sad how we are so easily will give up our rights without even realizing that we gave them away.

We already have a remedy for that sort of abuse.

It's called "Impeachment".

If you guys really think that Obama was in the wrong for blowing up that guy in Yemen, introduce articles of impeachment. Put your money where your mouth is.

Are you really that stupid? The House has to do that, and it is controlled by right wingers that love the idea of the government killing people without cause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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 .

.

You are a loon, period, and a very sick one at that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No sane person believes that you can't lose your rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ask ourselves why the far right and the libertarians here are arguing for protection for jihadists?

They are not concerned about constitutionality or jihadism.

They are concerned about protecting their own evil interests.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As long as dimwits don't think their rights are being violated, then I guess it is all okay. They seem to forget the government doesn't care who is being targeted, the government doesn't care if US citizens, or anyone else is killed. They only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist.

No one seems to realize, they can easily target us in the name of terrorism.

Sad how we are so easily will give up our rights without even realizing that we gave them away.

We already have a remedy for that sort of abuse.

It's called "Impeachment".

If you guys really think that Obama was in the wrong for blowing up that guy in Yemen, introduce articles of impeachment. Put your money where your mouth is.

Are you really that stupid? The House has to do that, and it is controlled by right wingers that love the idea of the government killing people without cause.

Then the only real complaint you have is about the outcome, not the process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As long as they're used within the field of war. I don't have any problem with them. They make sure we don't have to send teams of special forces or manned jets into harms way.

I think they're a good idea.

I guess the field of war needs defined. Bush went to war with Iraq after a vote of congress, that was easy. Same with Afghanistan. But Pakistan? Yemen?

Where was the 'battlefield' in WWII, against Japan? Wasn't the battlefield then anywhere you found the enemy?

I suggest study history, you might learn something. Specifically you should take the time to understand the concept of neutrality under international law, and how that actually prevents countries who are at war from attacking each other inside the borders of specific countries, despite your assertion otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gee, a US President is now able to assassinate anyone he doesn't like (US citizens included) without that pesky thing called "due process" getting in his way. What's there not to like?

Once again "due process" is not involved, and, no, a president cannot assassinate anyone s/he wants.

Nice to see you finally coming around.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gee, a US President is now able to assassinate anyone he doesn't like (US citizens included) without that pesky thing called "due process" getting in his way. What's there not to like?

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?

This has certainly been the case for non-US citizens since the dawn of our Republic, regardless of the technology being employed. If we are at-war with you, we can kill you.

Why don't you understand that military action against people on the battlefield and deliberately targeting people who have opinions you disagree with are two different things?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of the subject once again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...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.

Here is the question you have to answer, what the fuck makes targeting civilians legitimate wartime operations? Bush said that al Awlaki was involved in the planning of 9/11. When all the evidence came out he was forced to admit that this was pure speculation. Obama alleged that he was involved in the underwear bombing case, a charge that al Awlaki publicly denied, and actually challenged him to release the emails. He also claimed that he was actively involved in planning other attacks. HE used these charges to justify killing him extra judicially.

I want to see the evidence. Until he does that this was nothing more than an attack against someone who he said things he did not like. Even after he does that he still violated the Constitution by depriving a citizen of life without due process.

 

[georgephillip]

"...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?

Not compared to the Pentagon or Langley.

Among the 41 members of two families (14 women and 21 children) an Yemeni parliamentary investigation found a single aging Jihadist from the '80 Afghan campaigns named Kazemi, among the dead. Yemeni journalists and security analysts point out he was not a major figure within AQAP, and that he could easily have been captured and interrogated if the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet actually thought otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...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.

Feel free to define war in a way that allows the government to kill whoever it wants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I clearly did not.

What makes the editor of a magazine a combatant? Is it the same thing that made Rosen a spy? Does that mean Obama could have ordered Rosen killed the same way he did al Awlaki?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No sane person believes that you can't lose your rights.

Again, how would you know?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ask ourselves why the far right and the libertarians here are arguing for protection for jihadists?

They are not concerned about constitutionality or jihadism.

They are concerned about protecting their own evil interests.

I am here arguing that the government cannot ignore the fact that I have rights.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Why don't you understand that military action against people on the battlefield and deliberately targeting people who have opinions you disagree with are two different things?"

Confidence is high on my part that I understand the difference just as well as you do.

Trouble is, we are not looking at situations where people are being killed just because they disagree with us.

They are being killed because they are wartime Enemy Combatants or Enemy Leadership.

In unconventional, asymmetrical warfare, there are few 'battlefields' in the classical sense of the term.

Your seeming inability to free yourself from this classical-battlefield criteria seems problematic in the context of unconventional warfare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We already have a remedy for that sort of abuse.

It's called "Impeachment".

If you guys really think that Obama was in the wrong for blowing up that guy in Yemen, introduce articles of impeachment. Put your money where your mouth is.

Are you really that stupid? The House has to do that, and it is controlled by right wingers that love the idea of the government killing people without cause.

Then the only real complaint you have is about the outcome, not the process.

You are the idiot that thinks using drones makes it legal, not me. If you think it is illegal to send troops in to do something, but think it is OK to send a drone to kill people instead, then you are the one that has a problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ask ourselves why the far right and the libertarians here are arguing for protection for jihadists?

They are not concerned about constitutionality or jihadism.

They are concerned about protecting their own evil interests.

I am here arguing that the government cannot ignore the fact that I have rights.

You do have rights. If you are waging war against the US or aiding and abetting those waging war and you have placed yourself beyond the reach of LEO then you have placed yourself beyond the protection of your rights.

Let's make sure you understand. If you are waging war and place yourself beyond LEO, you have placed yourself beyond the protection of your rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Why don't you understand that military action against people on the battlefield and deliberately targeting people who have opinions you disagree with are two different things?"

Confidence is high on my part that I understand the difference just as well as you do.

Trouble is, we are not looking at situations where people are being killed just because they disagree with us.

They are being killed because they are wartime Enemy Combatants or Enemy Leadership.

In unconventional, asymmetrical warfare, there are few 'battlefields' in the classical sense of the term.

Your seeming inability to free yourself from this classical-battlefield criteria seems problematic in the context of unconventional warfare.

What evidence do you have that al Awlaki was anything more than the editor of a magazine that Obama did not like? Lay it all out for me to examine and form an opinion. Alternatively, you could admit that you are simply trusting the government to make that decision because you don't want to imagine a world where the government actually kills people because of their opinions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ask ourselves why the far right and the libertarians here are arguing for protection for jihadists?

They are not concerned about constitutionality or jihadism.

They are concerned about protecting their own evil interests.

I am here arguing that the government cannot ignore the fact that I have rights.

You do have rights. If you are waging war against the US or aiding and abetting those waging war and you have placed yourself beyond the reach of LEO then you have placed yourself beyond the protection of your rights.

Let's make sure you understand. If you are waging war and place yourself beyond LEO, you have placed yourself beyond the protection of your rights.

Rights protect people? How does that work? Is their a magical field that prevents people from violating rights in some places but not others? Why doesn't it prevent police from conducting illegal searches?

Newsflash, rights don't work the way you think they do, which is why we need to stop the government when it tries to get bigger.