Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill courts'

[Freewill]

He's not overriding Congress. The AUMF is still in effect.

The fact that NONE of you here will address what I say, and instead have to pretend I said something else and then address that proves that I'm absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong.

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

You totally ignore the nature of Al Qaeda. Your implied restraints would effectively end the war against Al Qaeda.

I ignore nothing. The killing of Al Qaeda members in a war zone is perfectly legal. But that is not what the drone program is doing. I realize protecting the rights of scum bag Americans who turn sides seems to be on the wrong side of the issue but I think Obama is coming around to agreeing. Or else he is setting up courts so he can use drones in America, I don't know. But what we know for a fact is that the drone killing program is out of control. They killed an INNOCENT 16 year old boy. Not because he was in the company of the target he was the target. But don't you worry this will blow over like when Reno's actions caused the deaths of so many at Waco. It will blow over like during Bush 1 years and Ruby Ridge. The government killed an innocent person on purpose and we will just say it was an accident or as Gibbs glibly said, he had bad parents.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I realize now it is the GPS stuff you think if far out, it isn't, how do you think drones find their targets?


The Truth About Obama's Drone Campaign: It's About Attrition, Not Decapitation

CIA Drone Targeting Tech Revealed, Qaeda Claims | Danger Room | Wired.com

In April, 19 year-old Habibur Rehman made a videotaped “confession” of planting such devices, just before he was executed by the Taliban as an American spy. “I was given $122 to drop chips wrapped in cigarette paper at Al Qaeda and Taliban houses,” he said. If I was successful, I was told, I would be given thousands of dollars.”

But Rehman says he didn’t just tag jihadists with the devices. “The money was good so I started throwing the chips all over. I knew people were dying because of what I was doing, but I needed the money,” he added. Which raises the possibility that the unmanned aircraft — America’s key weapons in its covert war on Pakistan’s jihadists and insurgents — may have been lead to the wrong targets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

You totally ignore the nature of Al Qaeda. Your implied restraints would effectively end the war against Al Qaeda.

I ignore nothing. The killing of Al Qaeda members in a war zone is perfectly legal. But that is not what the drone program is doing. I realize protecting the rights of scum bag Americans who turn sides seems to be on the wrong side of the issue but I think Obama is coming around to agreeing. Or else he is setting up courts so he can use drones in America, I don't know. But what we know for a fact is that the drone killing program is out of control. They killed an INNOCENT 16 year old boy. Not because he was in the company of the target he was the target. But don't you worry this will blow over like when Reno's actions caused the deaths of so many at Waco. It will blow over like during Bush 1 years and Ruby Ridge. The government killed an innocent person on purpose and we will just say it was an accident or as Gibbs glibly said, he had bad parents.

You're just parroting the propaganda. The boy was not the target. I've already posted the name of the legitimate target. I can't forcefeed you the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

There has yet to be a war where even the good guys have managed not to kill anyone who wasn't the enemy.

Only true for modern warfare during and after WW2. Prior to that civilian deaths were accidents not directed.

Why was the My Lai Massacre such a big deal using your logic?

Why wasn't the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

There has yet to be a war where even the good guys have managed not to kill anyone who wasn't the enemy.

Only true for modern warfare during and after WW2. Prior to that civilian deaths were accidents not directed.

Why was the My Lai Massacre such a big deal using your logic?

I take you consider the Israeli attacks into the occupied territories to be war crimes then? That the Israelis have no right to fire missiles at members of Hamas if there are civilians in the vicinity?

 

[Freewill]

There has yet to be a war where even the good guys have managed not to kill anyone who wasn't the enemy.

Only true for modern warfare during and after WW2. Prior to that civilian deaths were accidents not directed.

Why was the My Lai Massacre such a big deal using your logic?

I take you consider the Israeli attacks into the occupied territories to be war crimes then? That the Israelis have no right to fire missiles at members of Hamas if there are civilians in the vicinity?

Apples and oranges. Israel is protecting itself from a direct imminent attack. What is a war crime is the arabs lobbing missiles indiscriminately into Israel. What Israel is doing can be likened to what Bill Clinton did in Bosnia. Remember the ethnic Serbs in their ethnic dress standing on the bridge daring Bill to bomb it? And he did? No, I bet you don't.

 

[Freewill]

There has yet to be a war where even the good guys have managed not to kill anyone who wasn't the enemy.

Only true for modern warfare during and after WW2. Prior to that civilian deaths were accidents not directed.

Why was the My Lai Massacre such a big deal using your logic?

Why wasn't the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime then?

We won and I guess because a liberal democrat ordered it, that and the atomic bombs.

Besides we are talking about the targeting of AMERICAN citizens, whether you like those citizens or not. We are also talking about the innocents that are killed. ESPECIALLY an innocent 16 year old American. Did you read any of the Huffington posts links? Especially how the informants are placing the targeting devices just to collect money?

 

[Shoey]

We begin with the comprehension that according to Article II of The US Constitution, every President must uphold, defend and protect The US Constitution. The United States is not at war with the governments of Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, Somalia or The Philippians nor was Anwar al-Awlaki a member of the Yemani military. This individual was not killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan or in the normal course of actual war so he cannot be labeled or considered an enemy combatant, "belligerents", "the enemy", "militant" Whether Anwar al-Awlaki violated any US laws that could justify capital punishment has never been determined by a American court of law. While the evidence might seem obvious the President does not have the authority to determine of anyone has violated the law and to impose the death sentence. The determination of guilt is expressly limited to the Courts and requires due process of the law under the Constitution. The US Constitution explicitly delegates the authority to The US Congress to Declare War in Article I Section 8 and the President does not have the authority execute extra judicial killings. >The US Congress cannot declare war on terrorism as terrorism is a tactic, not specifically an entity, and it cannot authorize assassinations which violate treaties and international laws. <The US Congress is prohibited from authorizing "assassinations" Congress cannot Constitutionally delegate that authority to the President. The "War Powers Act" and the extra judicial murder of US citizens are unconstitutional (violation of The 5th Amendment) as were the Congressional authorizations for the use of military in Iraq. In fact, there have been no Declarations of War authorized by The US Congress since WW II.

 

[Shoey]

What gets me is that the same people who approve of Obama being judge and jury, then killing people are the same ones who whine about the GITMO prisoners deserving a fair trial in the states.

It's okay to kill people, including some innocents, but waterboarding is going too far. Military tribunals aren't good enough for terrorist suspects.

I guess Bush should have killed the terrorist suspects instead of putting them in GITMO and trying to get more information out of them.

Those killed with drones by order of Obama don't have a trial, so how does Obama declare them guilty? Aren't they considered suspects who are innocent until proven guilty?

I don't trust any politician with that kind of power, especially this administration.

Actually the idiot here is President Obama. The President has a legal mandate to close GITMO. President Obama should proceed with an executive order that would expeditiously be carried out to relocate GITMO detainees to a Federal Detention Center in the US. The incarceration of individuals solely based on their religious or political beliefs is unacceptable under the US Constitution and violates the ideals upon which America was founded upon.