Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[Intense]

"Last year a worried group of robotic specialists, philosophers and human rights activists formed the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) (icrac).

"They fear that such instruments may make wars more likely by the strong against the weak because there will be fewer human casualties by those waging robotic war.

"But proliferation is now a fact. Forty countries are reported to be working on drone technology or acquiring it. Some experts at the founding conference of ICRAC forshadowed hostile states or terrorist organizations hacking into robotic systems to redirect them.

"ICRAC wants an international treaty against machines of lethal autonomy along the lines of the ones banning land mines and cluster bombs.

"The trouble is that the United States, unlike over one hundred signatory nations, does not belong to either the land mines treaty or the more recent anti-cluster bomb treaty.

"Historically, the U.S. has been a major manufacturer and deployer of both. Don't count on the Obama White House to take the lead anytime soon."

As the Drone Flies... | Common Dreams

Nor China, nor Russia, nor North Korea, Nor Iran.

 

[Colin]

"Last year a worried group of robotic specialists, philosophers and human rights activists formed the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) (icrac).

"They fear that such instruments may make wars more likely by the strong against the weak because there will be fewer human casualties by those waging robotic war.

"But proliferation is now a fact. Forty countries are reported to be working on drone technology or acquiring it. Some experts at the founding conference of ICRAC forshadowed hostile states or terrorist organizations hacking into robotic systems to redirect them.

"ICRAC wants an international treaty against machines of lethal autonomy along the lines of the ones banning land mines and cluster bombs.

"The trouble is that the United States, unlike over one hundred signatory nations, does not belong to either the land mines treaty or the more recent anti-cluster bomb treaty.

"Historically, the U.S. has been a major manufacturer and deployer of both. Don't count on the Obama White House to take the lead anytime soon."

As the Drone Flies... | Common Dreams

Have a few more stiff drinks. By then you'll have drunk yourself sober and you can post this in the correct thread!

 

[georgephillip]

"Last year a worried group of robotic specialists, philosophers and human rights activists formed the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) (icrac).

"They fear that such instruments may make wars more likely by the strong against the weak because there will be fewer human casualties by those waging robotic war.

"But proliferation is now a fact. Forty countries are reported to be working on drone technology or acquiring it. Some experts at the founding conference of ICRAC forshadowed hostile states or terrorist organizations hacking into robotic systems to redirect them.

"ICRAC wants an international treaty against machines of lethal autonomy along the lines of the ones banning land mines and cluster bombs.

"The trouble is that the United States, unlike over one hundred signatory nations, does not belong to either the land mines treaty or the more recent anti-cluster bomb treaty.

"Historically, the U.S. has been a major manufacturer and deployer of both. Don't count on the Obama White House to take the lead anytime soon."

As the Drone Flies... | Common Dreams

Nor China, nor Russia, nor North Korea, Nor Iran.

"First some background. The Pentagon has about 7,000 aerial drones. Ten years ago there were less than 50. According to the website longwarjournal.com, they have destroyed about 1900 insurgents in Pakistan's tribal regions. How these fighters are so clearly distinguished from civilians in those mountain areas is not clear."

Are you clear on how many civilians the US military has killed since 9/11/2001?

Would you call those killings "terrorism?"

As the Drone Flies... | Common Dreams

 

[MikeK]

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

While I'm not a lawyer I did attend law school some years back and one of the things I managed to learn and retain about The Constitution is the meanings of some words used in drafting The Document have nuanced over the years, a circumstance which often is the cause of confusion and misinterpretation. The term, "public danger," is one prominent example.

Owing to the striking differences in all relevant conditions and circumstances between the time the Constitution was written and the present, the term public danger once referred to such relatively uncomplicated situations as that manifest in the famous warning, "To arms! The British are coming!" So if we are to consider the Original Intent of the cited "public danger" it must logically refer to imminent danger rather than potential danger. Otherwise it can be said the state of "public danger" has existed in the U.S. since the USSR tested its first nuclear missile.

Briefly stated, while it may be said there does exist the potential for terrorist attack on U.S. soil there is no indication of imminent attack, therefore no immediate "public danger" exists. To assume otherwise is to assume the President has the right to order the military to kill anyone, citizen or non-citizen, he designates as representing a "public danger."

 

[saveliberty]

Suppose that is why we are always at an immenient threat level according to the government system?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

You do know how this works, don't you? The Big 0 is the Commander in Chief. If he says to do it, then the cadre of folks you cite does it. If he says don't do it, then the cadre of folks you cite stops.

In truth, it IS one man who is doing this.

It is the right thing to do, but it is probably illegal. Law is not always just. That's why we have justices.

You do know that the POTUS is not "privy" to EVERYTHING that goes on in the world, don't you? "The Big O" may be the "Commander-In-Chief", but he is fed his information on a "need to know" basis. It has to do with that whole "plausible deniability" thing, and other things like "black ops" and intelligence-gathering and other CIA/James Bond-type scenarios.

In truth, it is NOT one man who is doing this. It is ONE man who is taking full credit for fighting terrorism, but it is a "team" effort.

I personally don't care if killing terrorists is "illegal" or not. Lots of actions during times of WAR are technically "illegal", and history has proven that FACT time and time again.

 

[MikeK]

Suppose that is why we are always at an immenient threat level according to the government system?

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather the citizens, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

 

[saveliberty]

Suppose that is why we are always at an immenient threat level according to the government system?

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather the citizens, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

We still have the Second Amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

tissue?

 

[MikeFrank]

Suppose that is why we are always at an immenient threat level according to the government system?

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather the citizens, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

We still have the Second Amendment.

Do we really?

 

[Sunshine]

And here is a good little essay about the Padilla case which explains how this type of activity on the part of our president adversely affects every single American:

The enemy-combatant doctrine constitutes the most direct and dangerous threat to the freedom of the American people in the history of our country. Prior to 9/11, terrorism was considered by almost everyone a federal criminal offense. If anyone, including an American, was accused of terrorism, the government had to secure a grand-jury indictment against him and prosecute him in U.S. district court. In that proceeding, the accused would be entitled to all the rights and guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to counsel, right to due process of law, right to trial by jury, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, right to confront witnesses, and right against self-incrimination.

Further:

What was revolutionary about President Bush’s treatment of Jose Padilla was that for the first time in U.S. history, the government was claiming the power to treat suspected terrorists in two alternative ways: (1) through the normal federal-court route; and (2) through the enemy-combatant route. It would be difficult to find a more perfect violation of the age-old principle of the “rule of law,” the principle that holds that all people should have to answer to a well-defined law for their conduct rather than to the discretionary decisions of government officials. With the post–9/11 option to treat suspected terrorists in two completely different ways, each with markedly different consequences, the president and the Pentagon converted the United States from a “nation of laws” to a “nation of men.”

The Enemy-Combatant Attack on Freedom, Part 1

 

[Sunshine]

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

While I'm not a lawyer I did attend law school some years back and one the things I managed to learn and retain about The Constitution is the meanings of some words used in drafting The Document have nuanced over the years, a circumstance which can be the cause of confusion and misinterpretation. The term, " public danger," being one prominent example.

Owing to the striking differences in all relevant conditions and circumstances at the time the Constitution was written and the present, the term public danger referred to such relatively uncomplicated situations as manifest in the famous warning, "To arms! The British are coming!" So if we are to consider the Original Intent of the cited "public danger" it must logically refer to imminent danger rather than potential danger. Otherwise it can be said the state of "public danger" has existed in the U.S. since the USSR tested its first nuclear missile.

Briefly stated, while it may be said there exists the potential for terrorist attack on U.S. soil there is no indication of imminent attack, therefore no immediate "public danger." To assume otherwise is to assume the President has the right to order the military to kill anyone, citizen or non-citizen, he designates as representing a "public danger."

Nice to hear from someone who actually gets it!

 

[geauxtohell]

Then we should DECLARE war -- shouldn't we? and NOT rely on somebody's dad to test a low level Federal judge to see if he might be a valid target..

That sounds pretty amatuerish compared to a Congressional Resolution..

If we're not fucking around anymore (and I'm not either) -- let's do it right..

I never really got wrapped up in the nuance of "we should declare war" when it comes to Al Qaeda. The authorization of the use of force is sufficient for me. It's pretty clear in it's scope and intent.

And there you have it, unconstitutinal. Now our Government can kill anyone at any time and they don't even have to shot proof (even if they have it) as to why.

Grats guys!

Don't be a dullard. The naming and targeting of an enemy combatent doesn't turn into a magical slippery slope where the government can simply start killing people.

You guys are starting to sound as idiotic as those Randy Weaver/Branch Davidian wingnuts.

 

[geauxtohell]

Once he had his commrads set off terrorist in this country to me he lost his rights especially when he is not living in the states. Although I do think we should have taken his american citizenship away a long time ago. He deserved to die period!! Why drag it out in court for years and years. Did the people in ft hood have that same right > He is also part of 9/11 and knew the highjackers of Flight 77 that his the pentagon.. The proof they have is in the 9/11 reports . Its been known for years but because of one dumb fucked FBI agent let him go to so call follow him. He should have been behind bars a long time ago!

Another wanabe America shows up to declare their joys of making up law as they go along.

This is what you get when you find yourself in a un declared War where we make the rules up as we go.

I hate Obama so I hope he goes down for this and Fast and furious!! So, have it your way I can care less . I still think this SOB needed to be dead!!!!

You think this was an appropriate action, but still hope Obama "goes down" for it because you "hate him"?

Nice.

 

[geauxtohell]

If the guy robbing the bank is not armed he is not shot dead for robbing the bank...we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

It sounds to me as though you haven't bothered to check into his activities. More than words...actions and activities. They speak louder than words.

No, no. This guy was just a regular Old Joe that the Muslim in the White House decided to assassinate! He was a "good ol' boy"! The Guberment murdered him! The Guberment is out of control!

It's absurd.

This piece of shit, because he was born and educated here, should have immunity to continue to plot attacks that kill Americans?

I don't fucking think so. Fuck him. I guess the "strict constitutionalists" live in a world where they think we have "Team America, World Police" on standbye to go and arrest schmucks like this when they are being shielded in Yemen by the Wahabbist scum.

 

[yidnar]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

the determination of what you are is made by yourself .....the man said he was a leader and supporter of Al Qaeda ,he trained,plotted,and recruited with them .....so he is a terrorist ..

 

[ScienceRocks]

I hope we kill every single Al Qaeda cock rouch throughout the world. To make matters worst is the fact that this creature was a traitor. Thank god we killed him.

This guy is in hell right now!

 

[yidnar]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

treason !!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

During the American civil war if you were found to be a traitor you were shot or hung on site.

 

[Bosun]

who gives a shit. dirt bag terrorists should be a room temperature..... Infidels rule.