Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill courts'

[NYcarbineer]

Care to show us where Congress gave the President the authority to kill American Citizens anywhere in the world if the President alone determines them to be threat without oversight or review?

That is the power Obama claims that he has.

You can't hide behind your American citizenship if you join forces with an enemy of the United States that the Congress has given the President the authority to use force against.

As I said, show me where Congress gave the office of the President of the United States of America the authority to kill an American Citizen anywhere in the world, even issuing secret Kill on Sight orders, lwithout review or oversight simply because the President determined them to be a danger to the country.

For the same reason that President Roosevelt did not have to have some committee sort through every planned bombing run at German emplacements in France to assure that none of the few American citizens who did in fact join the Nazis were in harm's way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Care to show us where Congress gave the President the authority to kill American Citizens anywhere in the world if the President alone determines them to be threat without oversight or review?

That is the power Obama claims that he has.

You can't hide behind your American citizenship if you join forces with an enemy of the United States that the Congress has given the President the authority to use force against.

Abdulrahman didn't "join forces with the enemy," nor should we simply take the administration's word for it that somebody did so. That's the purpose of due process.

AMEN

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 'legality' and 'constitutionality' questions can be resolved by identifying the Legal Basis for such sorties.

I don't know how to find that, but I'm guessing it's there for the viewing, by someone with the savvy to ferret it out from amongst the tons of Federal legalese available online.

Ya'll don't really think that they would undertake such sorties without having had a fairly thorough review of legality and the basis for same, do you?

That might fly if I didn't know that people with the savvy to ferret this stuff out have repeatedly said that no one has ever seen any sort of description of the process, and that Obama has not released a single document regarding it to anyone one through FOIA requests.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Care to show us where Congress gave the President the authority to kill American Citizens anywhere in the world if the President alone determines them to be threat without oversight or review?

That is the power Obama claims that he has.

You can't hide behind your American citizenship if you join forces with an enemy of the United States that the Congress has given the President the authority to use force against.

There is the problem.

When did Congress actually determine that random groups vetted solely by the president are waging war against the US?

Can you hide behind your American citizenship if you've joined forces with al qaeda?

Do you retain some sort of special 'shield' compared to the Yemeni schmo that you're fighting alongside?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can't hide behind your American citizenship if you join forces with an enemy of the United States that the Congress has given the President the authority to use force against.

There is the problem.

When did Congress actually determine that random groups vetted solely by the president are waging war against the US?

Can you hide behind your American citizenship if you've joined forces with al qaeda?

Do you retain some sort of special 'shield' compared to the Yemeni schmo that you're fighting alongside?

You're merely begging the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is the problem.

When did Congress actually determine that random groups vetted solely by the president are waging war against the US?

Can you hide behind your American citizenship if you've joined forces with al qaeda?

Do you retain some sort of special 'shield' compared to the Yemeni schmo that you're fighting alongside?

You're merely begging the question.

You're merely refusing to answer. Because you know the answer sends your crackpot notions down the crapper.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you hide behind your American citizenship if you've joined forces with al qaeda?

Do you retain some sort of special 'shield' compared to the Yemeni schmo that you're fighting alongside?

You're merely begging the question.

You're merely refusing to answer. Because you know the answer sends your crackpot notions down the crapper.

I have answered. You simply restated your original premise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't hide behind your American citizenship if you join forces with an enemy of the United States that the Congress has given the President the authority to use force against.

There is the problem.

When did Congress actually determine that random groups vetted solely by the president are waging war against the US?

Can you hide behind your American citizenship if you've joined forces with al qaeda?

Do you retain some sort of special 'shield' compared to the Yemeni schmo that you're fighting alongside?

My position, the president should not be able to order the death of anyone just because, even if they are not a citizen.

NYCoathook's response is to ask if the president should be able to kill Americans.

Then he wonders why I think he is contemptible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is the problem.

When did Congress actually determine that random groups vetted solely by the president are waging war against the US?

Can you hide behind your American citizenship if you've joined forces with al qaeda?

Do you retain some sort of special 'shield' compared to the Yemeni schmo that you're fighting alongside?

My position, the president should not be able to order the death of anyone just because, even if they are not a citizen.

NYCoathook's response is to ask if the president should be able to kill Americans.

Then he wonders why I think he is contemptible.

Then you believe it's unconstitutional for the Congress to authorize the use of force against some country or other organization that has attacked us.

That's in keeping with your desire to see this country disintegrate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you hide behind your American citizenship if you've joined forces with al qaeda?

Do you retain some sort of special 'shield' compared to the Yemeni schmo that you're fighting alongside?

My position, the president should not be able to order the death of anyone just because, even if they are not a citizen.

NYCoathook's response is to ask if the president should be able to kill Americans.

Then he wonders why I think he is contemptible.

Then you believe it's unconstitutional for the Congress to authorize the use of force against some country or other organization that has attacked us.

That's in keeping with your desire to see this country disintegrate.

You keep asking the wrong questions, which is why you keep coming up with the wrong answers. Can the president use a declaration of war against, for example, Vietnam, to justify bombing Cambodia?

 

[Intense]

Of course what this means is Obama knows he circumvented the law, he broke the law with his "kill list." There is no denying it.

Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill courts' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Proposals to vet future US drone strikes risk creating "kill courts" according to human rights campaigners who say Barack Obama's promise of new legal oversight does not go far enough to end what they regard as extrajudicial executions.

The president has asked Congress to consider establishing a special court or oversight board to authorise lethal action outside warzones under a new counter-terrorism doctrine which he says will end the "boundless war on terror".

But responses to his speech from leading campaign groups, though broadly welcoming, highlight how little change Obama is proposing to the underlying principle that the US has a legal right to kill suspected terrorists abroad without trial.

Pretty serious when viewed in the light of day. Admitting that there should be a process to insure both Due Process and Constitutionality is at least a start in the right direction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're merely begging the question.

You're merely refusing to answer. Because you know the answer sends your crackpot notions down the crapper.

I have answered. You simply restated your original premise.

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

 

[Freewill]

You're merely refusing to answer. Because you know the answer sends your crackpot notions down the crapper.

I have answered. You simply restated your original premise.

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

And all the ones they kill that are not part of the organization, is that just one giant oopsie?

 

[NYcarbineer]

My position, the president should not be able to order the death of anyone just because, even if they are not a citizen.

NYCoathook's response is to ask if the president should be able to kill Americans.

Then he wonders why I think he is contemptible.

Then you believe it's unconstitutional for the Congress to authorize the use of force against some country or other organization that has attacked us.

That's in keeping with your desire to see this country disintegrate.

You keep asking the wrong questions, which is why you keep coming up with the wrong answers. Can the president use a declaration of war against, for example, Vietnam, to justify bombing Cambodia?

You keep making up strawmen that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Do you believe it's unconstitutional for the Congress to authorize the use of force against some country or other organization that has attacked us?

I'll assume a non-answer is a yes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're merely refusing to answer. Because you know the answer sends your crackpot notions down the crapper.

I have answered. You simply restated your original premise.

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have answered. You simply restated your original premise.

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

And all the ones they kill that are not part of the organization, is that just one giant oopsie?

You mean like what? Oops, we bombed a munitions factory in Germany in 1944 and killed a bunch of civilians that lived across the street?

That's what you mean by oops?

 

[Freewill]

Of course what this means is Obama knows he circumvented the law, he broke the law with his "kill list." There is no denying it.

Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill courts' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Proposals to vet future US drone strikes risk creating "kill courts" according to human rights campaigners who say Barack Obama's promise of new legal oversight does not go far enough to end what they regard as extrajudicial executions.

The president has asked Congress to consider establishing a special court or oversight board to authorise lethal action outside warzones under a new counter-terrorism doctrine which he says will end the "boundless war on terror".

But responses to his speech from leading campaign groups, though broadly welcoming, highlight how little change Obama is proposing to the underlying principle that the US has a legal right to kill suspected terrorists abroad without trial.

Pretty serious when viewed in the light of day. Admitting that there should be a process to insure both Due Process and Constitutionality is at least a start in the right direction.

I think the killing of an innocent 16 year old shook him up. He ought to be careful though admitting that he was extra Constitutional. The government is being sued by the boys family for wrongful death. As should those who had family die at Benghazi.

 

[Freewill]

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

And all the ones they kill that are not part of the organization, is that just one giant oopsie?

You mean like what? Oops, we bombed a munitions factory in Germany in 1944 and killed a bunch of civilians that lived across the street?

That's what you mean by oops?

Not at all like when the Chinese Embassy was bombed during Clinton's 72 days of terror bombing Bosnia.

More like when a 16 year old innocent boy is tagged with a GPS device and summarily killed by our government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have answered. You simply restated your original premise.

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And all the ones they kill that are not part of the organization, is that just one giant oopsie?

You mean like what? Oops, we bombed a munitions factory in Germany in 1944 and killed a bunch of civilians that lived across the street?

That's what you mean by oops?

Not at all like when the Chinese Embassy was bombed during Clinton's 72 days of terror bombing Bosnia.

More like when a 16 year old innocent boy is tagged with a GPS device and summarily killed by our government.

Is that Alex Jones material? If it is please stop talking to me.