Drones - its a method - who cares?

[JakeStarkey]

QWB does not understand that it has been explained to him legally and logically, and that his refusal to accept it means nothing except to him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

When you can form a logical comment, I can respond to it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

When you can form a logical comment, I can respond to it.

My comment was a lot more logical than yours. Rights do not protect anyone from anything. If they did no one would ever be killed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

We have the cooperation of the Yemeni government, so, by your own measures, that makes drone strikes against Al Qaeda in Yemen legal and constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The President's mandate in the AUMF is to use force against Al Qaeda as well as anyone harboring Al Qaeda.

So if the US has cooperation with a country to go in after Al Qaeda, we're good under the AUMF. If the country won't cooperate, they're harboring Al Qaeda,

as was Afghanistan in and before 2001, so we're good under the AUMF as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I never said or implied any such thing.

 

[dblack]

"...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.

That's essentially what they've done. Further they've given themselves the power to capture and imprison anyone accused of terrorism until the war is 'over'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We have the cooperation of the Yemeni government, so, by your own measures, that makes drone strikes against Al Qaeda in Yemen legal and constitutional.

The Pakistani government has repeatedly said that we do not have permission to use drones inside Pakistan, and Obama has publicly said that any rules he comes up with for drones do not apply to Pakistan.

Next stupid argument from NYC in 5, 4, 3...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The President's mandate in the AUMF is to use force against Al Qaeda as well as anyone harboring Al Qaeda.

So if the US has cooperation with a country to go in after Al Qaeda, we're good under the AUMF. If the country won't cooperate, they're harboring Al Qaeda,

as was Afghanistan in and before 2001, so we're good under the AUMF as well.

Again, if you think it is illegal to send troops to capture or kill a person, but think it is legal to send drones, you are the one with the problem, not me. I think both are wrong, but at least sending troops gives the person a chance to surrender.

By the way, try telling Israel that Nazi's in countries without extradition treaties are beyond the reach of LEOs.

 

[Kondor3]

"...What evidence do you have that al Awlaki was anything more than the editor of a magazine that Obama did not like?..."

With all due respect... to hell with al-Awlaki. I'm dealing with the concept on the macro level and you're piddling-around with the details of a specific case. This gets us nowhere.

"...you could admit that you are simply trusting the government to make that decision..."

That is exactly what I am doing, although I am happy to join you in watch-dogging them to ensure that they do their job properly.

"... because you don't want to imagine a world where the government actually kills people because of their opinions."

No. I am trusting them to do their job, as they are paid to do, as they are sworn to do.

Subject to appropriate scrutiny and accountability.

If you believe that your specific example was wrongfully targeted, then this is a matter of Intelligence and Authorizations and does not invalidate the concept of killing-by-drone of Enemy Combatants and Leaders in pursuit of unconventional warfare goals.

Your boy (al-Awlaki) was designated an Enemy Combatant in this happy little unconventional war of ours - he made the Kill List - Wanted Dead or Alive - preferably Dead.

So they killed him.

I have no knowledge (solid or otherwise) that he was placed upon the Kill List because of differences of opinion.

And, in the final analysis, the same can probably be said of you as well.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Pakistani government has repeatedly said that we do not have permission to use drones inside Pakistan, and Obama has publicly said that any rules he comes up with for drones do not apply to Pakistan."

And, for all practical purposes, we have either implicitly told the Pakistanis to go screw themselves, or they are saying one thing in public for public consumption, and another behind closed doors. So? We are not about to let some greasy tribal-folk in some shabby, lawless provincial region of some flea-bitten country or another, to shelter our mortal enemies and to give them free reign to operate against neighboring countries (or ourselves) from those bases. It's a luxury-perq that comes with being the Big Dog on the Block, and I'm gratified to see that we still have the backbone to play that card when we need to.

 

[Contumacious]

"...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..

Guantanamo Bay: The Model for an American Police State?

by John W. Whitehead



For most Americans, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay – once the topic of heated political debate by presidential hopeful Barack Obama but rarely talked about by the incumbent President Obama – has become a footnote in the government’s ongoing war on terror.

Yet for the approximately 167 detainees still being held in that godforsaken gulag, 86 of whom have been cleared for release yet continue to be imprisoned at the facility, Guantanamo Bay is a lesson in injustice, American-style. It is everything that those who founded America vigorously opposed: kidnapping, torture, dehumanizing treatment, indefinite detention, being “disappeared” with no access to family or friends, and little hope of help from the courts."

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, QWB, when you can form a logical comment, I can respond to it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Guantanamo Bay: The Model for an American Police State?..."

Non sequitur to the issue of Drone Killings during the War on Terror...

Although I may join such a conversation (on Gitmo) with feedback at some future date when I feel like it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

contumacious is the exemplar of the non sequitur followed by crusader frank

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With all due respect... to hell with al-Awlaki. I'm dealing with the concept on the macro level and you're piddling-around with the details of a specific case. This gets us nowhere.

With absolutely no respect at all, al Awliki is the macro level. He is the end result of the policy that says the government can target people based on the criteria that they are enemy combatants and/or leaders of the people we are at war with. Unless you can demonstrate that al Awliki actually meets that criteria, you cannot argue that the criteria is the one we are using. Until you can do that you are defending a policy that allows the government to target people who are critical of the government.

The ball is in your court.

That is exactly what I am doing, although I am happy to join you in watch-dogging them to ensure that they do their job properly.

No you aren't. If you were you would be demanding that they explain what evidence they had against al Awliki instead of trying to argue that you are looking at the big picture.

No. I am trusting them to do their job, as they are paid to do, as they are sworn to do.

Subject to appropriate scrutiny and accountability.

If you believe that your specific example was wrongfully targeted, then this is a matter of Intelligence and Authorizations and does not invalidate the concept of killing-by-drone of Enemy Combatants and Leaders in pursuit of unconventional warfare goals.

You are missing the point. I do not have to prove that he was wrongfully targeted, our entire legal system is based on the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty at trial. Unless the government is trying these people, and obtaining a legitimate conviction, they are wrong.

Have you seen any evidence that they are doing this? Did I miss it? How can you say you trust them to do their jobs when they are demonstrably not doing them?

Your boy (al-Awlaki) was designated an Enemy Combatant in this happy little unconventional war of ours - he made the Kill List - Wanted Dead or Alive - preferably Dead.

So they killed him.

I have no knowledge (solid or otherwise) that he was placed upon the Kill List because of differences of opinion.

And, in the final analysis, the same can probably be said of you as well.

You keep missing the point. Until you provide evidence that he actually did something that justified him being killed you are no better than the people who looked the other way when Germany started shipping people off to concentration camps. How does it feel to be a fascist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...The Pakistani government has repeatedly said that we do not have permission to use drones inside Pakistan, and Obama has publicly said that any rules he comes up with for drones do not apply to Pakistan."

And, for all practical purposes, we have either implicitly told the Pakistanis to go screw themselves, or they are saying one thing in public for public consumption, and another behind closed doors. So? We are not about to let some greasy tribal-folk in some shabby, lawless provincial region of some flea-bitten country or another, to shelter our mortal enemies and to give them free reign to operate against neighboring countries (or ourselves) from those bases. It's a luxury-perq that comes with being the Big Dog on the Block, and I'm gratified to see that we still have the backbone to play that card when we need to.

Since all you have are the public comments, you lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, you have nothing at the end of the day.

The drone strikes are constitutional, not withstanding your belief, but, hey, . . . it is what it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again, QWB, when you can form a logical comment, I can respond to it.

Sorry, I forgot to keep my comments on your education level.

Killing people bad. See spot run.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, QWB, when you can form a logical comment, I can respond to it.

Sorry, I forgot to keep my comments on your education level.

Killing people bad. See spot run.

Yes, that is the level of your comprehension.