Obama Drone Attacks Legal/Moral?...

[Dr Grump]

[

That's what I keep saying. There was no Al Qaida in Pakistan until Obama decided to kill them with drones. And now they have used this issue for recruiting.

Obama lied, people died.

No blood for oil.


That's exactly my point.

Killing terrorists just upsets the ones you just killed

I couldn't give two shits about terrorists being killed. That's the difference between you and I. To you ME people are just sand ******* and ragheads - be they nomads, doctors, engineers or terrorists....

USA! USA! USA!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

getting off topic, but I criticize Israel for doing the same things. terrorist attack, they respond by blowing up a building or block, killing innocent Palestinians. Fueling their anger, giving the terrorist a sympathetic ear amongst the palestinians. Anybody here would do the same if they had their house destroyed and members killed by another country. THey would be furious with those people and claim terrorism. And how has that worked for the situation? Nothing, retaliation after retaliation, and it never ends, nor appears it will end.

 

[blu]

cmike showing his ignorance and immaturity again

 

[CMike]

What you have resorted to in the form of "argument" reveals that you don't have a leg to stand on and cannot respond honestly to the legitimate and considerable problem of drone use. You have nothing, so you build exaggerated strawmen and pretend to embody them.

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

 

[Rudy]

By the way dumb shit, the Supreme Court ALSO ruled that every enemy Combatant we capture can be tried by Military Tribunal. Not required to send any of them to Federal Court, in fact it is a bad idea all round. They did not receive the safe guards a person would receive in the Civilian sector and so any competent Judge would have to throw the charges out for violating numerous of their supposed rights. No right to an attorney before questioning, no speedy trial, no right to hear the charges, no right to face their accusers, No 5th amendment protection. No right to a bail hearing. And the BIGGEST of them all is the fact that the US Attorney General ANNOUNCED on National TV they are not Innocent till proven guilty. He stated that if a Federal Court does not convict them he will turn them back over to the military for indefinite detention or a Military Tribunal.

Still waiting on you to cite the exact Supreme Court case Gunny...

 

[CMike]

cmike showing his ignorance and immaturity again

Dude whats with the hostility?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW5aPD2rarY&feature=PlayList&p=45EA7DE21AD35BCC&index=8]YouTube - Hare Krishna devotee,Jagannatha Puri-India[/ame]

 

[QUENTIN]

I'm curious too.

Of the major Supreme Court cases related to detainee detention Rasul v Bush (2004) held that U.S. courts had jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees; Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006) held that the Military Commissions were illegal and improper, violating the Geneva convention; the most commonly cited, Boumediene v Bush (2008) is I think the one he's trying to cite, but it held that the Military Commissions Act enacted following Hamdan v Rumsfeld was an illegal suspension of the right of habeas corpus protection guaranteed to Guantanamo detainees and that they were necessarily afforded Constitutional rights tribunals did not afford. All of them categorically affirmed that detainees cannot be tried by military commissions because they do not afford the same rights as U.S. courts.

The Obama DOJ's recent 2009 update of the Military Commissions Act, with its arbitrary channeling of some detainees into real courts, others into military tribunals, and other still into uncharged and untried permanent detention, is likely to be overturned soon enough.

Every Supreme Court ruling on the subject has concluded the opposite of what Gunny claimed, that in fact military tribunals do not apply to those captured in the war on terror because they do not satisfy the Bill of Rights. The precedent for this was set 150 years ago when The U. S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which has been upheld ever since.

I'm guessing that like his belief that the defense budget accounted for 5% of federal spending, he wasn't lying, just grossly misinformed.

 

[CMike]

I think Obama was right to apologize to the work for the United States.

What right did the US have to stop the nazis and japanese from conquering the world?

Once again, the US was arrogant, and stuck it's nose in where it doesn't belong.

And how stupid?

In the US we would trains that run on time, and have sushi in all our McDonalds.

If only America didn't display it's arrogance, like it does numerous times...

Thank you Obama for letting the world know how you really feel about America

 

[CMike]

I'm curious too.

Of the major Supreme Court cases related to detainee detention Rasul v Bush (2004) held that U.S. courts had jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees; Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006) held that the Military Commissions were illegal and improper, violating the Geneva convention; the most commonly cited, Boumediene v Bush (2008) is I think the one he's trying to cite, but it held that the Military Commissions Act enacted following Hamdan v Rumsfeld was an illegal suspension of the right of habeas corpus protection guaranteed to Guantanamo detainees and that they were necessarily afforded Constitutional rights tribunals did not afford. All of them categorically affirmed that detainees cannot be tried by military commissions because they do not afford the same rights as U.S. courts.

The Obama DOJ's recent 2009 update of the Military Commissions Act, with its arbitrary channeling of some detainees into real courts, others into military tribunals, and other still into uncharged and untried permanent detention, is likely to be overturned soon enough.

Every Supreme Court ruling on the subject has concluded the opposite of what Gunny claimed, that in fact military tribunals do not apply to those captured in the war on terror because they do not satisfy the Bill of Rights. The precedent for this was set 150 years ago when The U. S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which has been upheld ever since.

I'm guessing that like his belief that the defense budget accounted for 5% of federal spending, he wasn't lying, just grossly misinformed.

Exactly right.

Before any terrorist is captured, a prosecuting attorney should go to a judge, and get a warrant. Obviously without a warrant any surveillance is illegal.

Then after a prolonged investigation where all the Ts and Is are dotted the government should get an arrest warrant. We should then wait for the international community to bring that terrrorist to justice.

Once in custody, the terrorist should be read his rights. Of course, he has the right to remain silent, and told that anything he says can and will be used against him.

The US can then issue subpoenas for material witnesses for Afghnistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, and wait for them to come.

Of course, all intelligence information involved in the terrorist's capture should be revealed to that terrorist and his lawyer. After all, we want a fair trial, don't we?

Then, hopefully, once we have all the witnesses, there would be conviction. If not, oh well.

After all what is important is Obama getting another peace price, and how we look in the eyes of the world community. That is much more important than stopping terrorist attacks in America.

 

[CMike]

What you have resorted to in the form of "argument" reveals that you don't have a leg to stand on and cannot respond honestly to the legitimate and considerable problem of drone use. You have nothing, so you build exaggerated strawmen and pretend to embody them.

I couldn't agree more.

For every drone missile attack, 600 million Pakistini women and children are killed.

 

[QUENTIN]

CMike, do you suggest the Constitution be radically amended to change every instance where it specifically mentions that distinct from citizens it applies to all persons, or do you not care what the Constitution says in the first place and think it shouldn't constrain what the government can do?

And your figures are a little off, I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to exaggerate. It's 69 civilians for every 1 alleged combatant.

 

[CMike]

CMike, do you suggest the Constitution be radically amended to change every instance where it specifically mentions that distinct from citizens it applies to all persons, or do you not care what the Constitution says in the first place and think it shouldn't constrain what the government can do?

And your figures are a little off, I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to exaggerate. It's 69 civilians for every 1 alleged combatant.

Make love, not war.

 

[CMike]

Okay, I'll come clean.

I was just having some fun with the idiotic left wing arguements I constantly hear.

So:

1) Al Qaida terrorists are unlawful combatants and have no rights

2) They should not have civilian trials, and military tribunals are part of american law, and that would be the proper place for them to be tried

3) We should go and hunt down Al Qaida wherever they are, and we should punish any states that support them in any way

We are in a war. We can either engage in the war, and go where they are and weaken their infrastructure, leadership, communication, logistics, finances, and training facilities, or we can wait for them to come to us

Yes it's a protractred, and a difficult war, but it's a war that we must engage in, because the enemy has engaged, and is not waiting for us to make up our minds

4) The best Al Qaida terrorist is a dead Al Qaida terrorist

5) For me to take this 62.123334 number for casualties for drone attacks, I need to see the source and how that number was reached. I don't believe such a number can be determined by a credible source

6) Giving Al Qaida terrorists "rights" only makes them more powerful and more dangerous.

7) We are in a very serious war. The US has to be right 100% of the time, Al Qaida has to be right only once to successfully execute a terrorist attack within the US.

Therefore, this granting rights to them, playing nice nice with them, and interrogating them with tea and croissants, puts this country in very grave danger.

Time is against us and the odds are against us.

We need to fight to win and we need to fight very aggresively.

Have a good night everyone.
8) Obama is a retard.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think Obama was right to apologize to the work for the United States.

What right did the US have to stop the nazis and japanese from conquering the world?

:

While making strawman arguments, why not start one about the benefits Hitler brought to the world compared to say....oh, I dunno, Mother Theresa...

 

[Dr Gregg]

Again, for every one alleged terrorist killed by drone attacks in Pakistan, 69 innocent civilians were killed. This does far more than just "upset" those civilians family and friends, it turns them against Americans. Just as you would turn against the British government if they dropped a bomb on your neighborhood and killed your family because they mistakenly thought there was a terrorist hiding out there.

The vast majority of drones do not kill their targets. 1,510 civilians and only 22 suspected terrorists have been killed by drones in Pakistan since we started using them.

It is simply a lie, a make believe fallacy, to pretend that it is mostly terrorists being killed by these drones or that the outrage from Pakistanis and morally consistent Americans is because terrorists were killed, rather than because an incredibly disproportionate number of civilians were killed.

Doesn't matter what the facts are to people like that, they would rather pretend that the civilians are harboring terrorists instead of the reality that they are just innocent victims, because the US gov't can't possibly do things that are bad.

 

[Rudy]

Again, for every one alleged terrorist killed by drone attacks in Pakistan, 69 innocent civilians were killed. This does far more than just "upset" those civilians family and friends, it turns them against Americans. Just as you would turn against the British government if they dropped a bomb on your neighborhood and killed your family because they mistakenly thought there was a terrorist hiding out there.

The vast majority of drones do not kill their targets. 1,510 civilians and only 22 suspected terrorists have been killed by drones in Pakistan since we started using them.

It is simply a lie, a make believe fallacy, to pretend that it is mostly terrorists being killed by these drones or that the outrage from Pakistanis and morally consistent Americans is because terrorists were killed, rather than because an incredibly disproportionate number of civilians were killed.

Doesn't matter what the facts are to people like that, they would rather pretend that the civilians are harboring terrorists instead of the reality that they are just innocent victims, because the US gov't can't possibly do things that are bad.

Don't forget about the supposed Supreme Court case that makes all of this OK.

By the way.. I'm still waiting on some certain salty Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant to cite the case he pulled out of his ass.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

War sucks, collateral damage is inevitable which is why war sucks. I dont have a problem with drone strikes but then again they aren't happening in my neighborhood.

 

[Rudy]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

War sucks, collateral damage is inevitable which is why war sucks. I dont have a problem with drone strikes but then again they aren't happening in my neighborhood.

Isn't that the problem?

 

[Dr Gregg]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

War sucks, collateral damage is inevitable which is why war sucks. I dont have a problem with drone strikes but then again they aren't happening in my neighborhood.

that's a big thing, its not happening in your neighborhood, and really hasn't happened in our entire history on our homeland. Europe is more anti-war than us because they have experience the horrors of war in their countries. The destruction, death, hunger, etc. The US really has not. Pearl Harbor was not really on the homeland, and the closest thing was 9/11 and that really was minor compared to actually having your country as the main battleground in war and some of the widespread bombings.

Maybe that's why so many americans are so flippant about war are times and OK to say "well, war sucks". I'm sure they might ease off that if they actually experienced the horrors of war in their homeland first hand

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I thought i might have been subtle enough that you guys would glance over the true intent of my post....you are both too darn smart

I was arguing with someone about Iraqi insurgents (yeah yeah so passe now i know) the other day and I said to them "If Iraq was in our streets trying to help us, but armed with guns and military equipment, I would be that insurgent" I know myself too well.