Drones - its a method - who cares?

[Kondor3]

"...Obamas fans trying to spin it..."

Obama fans? I voted for the guy both times, but only because I saw both McSame and Mittens as the more evil of the two choices. I held my nose while voting for Fearless Leader and came close to regretting it 30 seconds after I'd dropped my ballot in the counting box.

"...to justify assassanations..."

There is no need to justify the killing of Enemy Combatants and Leaders during the course of legitimate wartime operations. Such killings do not equate to assassination.

"...it is WRONG by the US law and the Genva convention..."

The killing of Enemy Combatants is NOT wrong by US Law NOR the Geneva Conventions.

"...you can not just kill people because you feel like it."

You and I are in complete agreement upon this very important principle.

But that is not the scenario at-issue here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:



Is that right?

Absolutely. Not. Good thing for the Administration that they were engaged in legitimate wartime combat operations rather than criminal prosecution, right?

this is getting hilarious.... on the Obamas fans trying to spin it to justify assassanations.... it is WRONG by the US law and the Genva convention. ...So wrong....jesus crist look into your soul.... you can not just kill people because you feel like it.

Assassinations they are not but justified by the law of war. I find it the those who claim they understand and love the Constitution clearly do not understand it.

 

[Papageorgio]

QWB has self imposed 'victor syndrome derangement'.

Hey, dude, you have the right to your opinion and your questions, but your world view is not law.

it is the world law and the U.S. by executive order. prove it other wise. Their is NO FUCKING HONOR by assassantions in war. take the accused to judge and jury like Bush jr. did and then KiILL them. thats the American way, to say otherwise....... your just no better then your enemy.

It is the law, and it what it is. Bush the Younger used drones too, son, and he used them as much as the state of technology permitted.

You support jihadism, pure and simple, a sleeper agent.

Since he is a sleeper agent, would you support his being taken out by a drone?

 

[dblack]

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:



Is that right?

Absolutely. Not. Good thing for the Administration that they were engaged in legitimate wartime combat operations rather than criminal prosecution, right?

this is getting hilarious.... on the Obamas fans trying to spin it to justify assassanations.... it is WRONG by the US law and the Genva convention. ...So wrong....jesus crist look into your soul.... you can not just kill people because you feel like it.

Souls are in short supply these days.

I wonder how many Obama supporters voted for him with hopes that he'd reverse the neo-con bullshit. I also wonder if they realize now how wrong they were.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Due process" as we understand it today, QWB, did not exist in federal law at the time.

Due process is in the Constitution, want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Thanks for demoinstrating how stupid fascists are. FYI, habeus corpus and due process are two separate things, due process was not suspended during the Civil War."

Habeus Corpus is a legal action - a process at-law - triggered by a writ - which an individual may claim as his due - a demand served against a government entity to produce a person under arrest in order to extend to that person additional due processes at-law that are his right. At law, Habeus Corpus is both due process and the guarantor of other due process.

And, of course, Japanese-Americans were denied due process at-law in having their liberty curtailed without sound reason nor without adequate and effective hearing at-law.

Keep trying, Internet tough-guy, you'll get it right sooner or later.

But it will have to be with somebody else, Sparky... you've soiled my pants-cuff enough for one day, trying desperately to dry-hump my leg.

You are the one that made the claim that safety always trumps due process, and then tried to use the Civil War as an example. Why should I keep trying?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Habeus Corpus is a legal action - a process at-law - triggered by a writ - which an individual may claim as his due - a demand be served against a government entity to produce a person under arrest in order to extend to that person additional due processes at-law that are his right. At law, Habeus Corpus is both due process and the guarantor of other processes.

And, of course, Japanese-Americans were denied due process at-law in having their liberty curtailed without sound reason nor without adequate and effective hearing at-law.

Keep trying, Internet tough-guy, you'll get it right sooner or later.

its a straw man argument try again. You Can not kill just one person....it is not moraly right.... you have to bring him or her to trial...

Not when they refuse to peacefully submit to arrest. That is what the accused are doing in the ME. And if such militia or urban terrorists do it here, refuse to submit, then an option will be a visit by hell fire.

That isn't what Obama says.

 

[Kondor3]

"..."

Seen...

 

[tinydancer]

So we still have liberals and progressives defending a drone assassination of a kid from Denver.

I love this shit. Shows how crazy whacked out these so called progressives are.

Water boarding bad. Assassination by Obama good. There's your progressive today.

 

[Kondor3]

"...defending a drone assassination of a kid from Denver..."

Whoever in the world did that (defended such a thing)?

 

[Indofred]

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense except where summery execution without trial is deemed acceptable.

Is that right?

Absolutely. Not. Good thing for the Administration that they were engaged in legitimate wartime combat operations rather than criminal prosecution, right?

I don't believe that's correct.
If a man joins an enemy state it would constitute treason and a trial should follow.
If you invade a country; you sort of expect to get shot at so you can't really call them terrorists.
If it's the son of a man who you want to kill but you kill the child instead; that's probably murder.

 

[tinydancer]

"...defending a drone assassination of a kid from Denver..."

Whoever in the world did that (defended such a thing)?

Read the thread.

Sadly there are some. Not broad brushing here but if you read thru the thread you will and shall find them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...defending a drone assassination of a kid from Denver..."

Whoever in the world did that (defended such a thing)?

You did.

 

[Kondor3]

"...defending a drone assassination of a kid from Denver..."

Whoever in the world did that (defended such a thing)?

You did.

Nope. I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You are the one that made the claim that safety always trumps due process, and then tried to use the Civil War as an example..."

"...and citizenship."

I not only tried to use the suspension of Habeus Corpus as an example but I succeeded.

My second success in illustrating the point was the internment of Japanese-Americans.

"...Why should I keep trying?"

Indeed. The concept has been amply illustrated. Further protestation is pointless. And baseless.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I don't believe that's correct..."

Yes. That is understood. We disagree.

"...If a man joins an enemy state it would constitute treason and a trial should follow..."

The man may also be legally killed during the course of normal wartime operations.

And, if he has gone-to-ground and is beyond your reach (other than via drone-strike) and if continuing to allow him to live puts your fellow countrymen at risk, then, he may also be intentionally targeted.

There is precedent in both warfare and in law enforcement.

"...If you invade a country; you sort of expect to get shot at so you can't really call them terrorists..."

We invaded Yemen?

"...If it's the son of a man who you want to kill but you kill the child instead; that's probably murder."

I do not recall anybody in the Administration saying that they intentionally killed any boy.

If, during the course of legitimate wartime operations, a child who is not the target of the strike is also killed, that's probably an accident - collateral casualties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

QWB and the rest constitute a minimal % of Americans. They have no impact on the matter.

 

[georgephillip]

Absolutely. Not. Good thing for the Administration that they were engaged in legitimate wartime combat operations rather than criminal prosecution, right?

I don't believe that's correct.
If a man joins an enemy state it would constitute treason and a trial should follow.
If you invade a country; you sort of expect to get shot at so you can't really call them terrorists.
If it's the son of a man who you want to kill but you kill the child instead; that's probably murder.

It is murder.

2 weeks after you kill daddy, you just as the Obama administration went for it decides to off the kid.

Rpbert Gibbs in all his Obama "I am the man" glory actually states that the kid got assassinated because his father could have been might have been a terrorist?

How full of themselves are they in that White House that the WH press secretary can actually justify the death of an American kid from Denver because Obama et al thought his dad was a terrorist?

It's also Applied Terror 101, and Obama is simply its most recent terrorist-in-chief.
What the CIA is doing today in Africa and the Middle East was honed in Central America during the 1980s when US-trained assassins would target the children of those standing in opposition to local oligarchs:

"Honduras had death squads active through the 1980s, the most notorious of which was Battalion 3–16. Hundreds of people, teachers, politicians, and union bosses were assassinated by government-backed forces. Battalion 316 received substantial support and training from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.[48] At least 19 members were School of the Americas graduates..."

The murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a reminder to all those who object to the motive$ of the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet that their children are also pawn$ in the Great Game.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The killing of al-Awlaki is "a reminder to all those who" would threaten the lives of Americans that they place "their children" in the path of harm.

Americans take very seriously putting their children first before those of their enemies.

 

[Indofred]

The man may also be legally killed during the course of normal wartime operations.

We invaded Yemen?

"...If it's the son of a man who you want to kill but you kill the child instead; that's probably murder."

I do not recall anybody in the Administration saying that they intentionally killed any boy.

If, during the course of legitimate wartime operations, a child who is not the target of the strike is also killed, that's probably an accident - collateral casualties.

What war? Is the US in a state of war with Pakistan, Yemen or any other country it uses drone strikes in.
In fact, invading a foreign country with a war plane is an act of war or, if no war is declared, terrorism.
Please explain why using aircraft to kill people in Pakistan or Yemen is different to the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour.
Neither party declared war but both attacked and killed civilians.

If it wasn't intentional; why did he die?
Get real - these things can put a missile though a given window - it was deliberate.

Collateral casualties of an illegal act makes it murder.

I'll pose a question.
If Cuba sent a drone to the United states get rid of convicted terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, but killed a few locals who happened to be around - would that be a legitimate act of war or a terrorist attack.
While I'm asking - why does the United states protect a known mass murderer and terrorist who we know killed 73 people when he bombed an airliner?

Would it be because he was working for the CIA when he did it?
What - didn't you know America (Fighter of global terrorism) is a major supporter of global terrorism?