Assasinations

[kalm]

Everybody's pants are down on this one. Donks who loved the constitution when Bush was in office but are silent about it when it's there guy in charge, and tough guy conks who think the constitution should be trumped in the name of fighting terror.

The idea that "we are a nation of laws and freedom" is bullshit.

Don't bother finding a story like this in the msm.


Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

[dbackjon]

Very much an issue to me

[kalm]

Very much an issue to me

And it should be to all of us because these things are happening in our name. I'm guessing the conks on the board are having a difficult time reconciling their beloved constitution past the reptilian portion of their brain.

[89Hen]

Got any stats on kills?

[danefan]

Sorry - but if you join an enemy military force to fight against the US - to me you've sacrificed your right to protection under our Consitution.

Who should decide that is debatable, but the premise is not, IMO.

[kalm]

Got any stats on kills?

I've got no stats nor are they mentioned in the article, but press releases from the military on predator drone strikes are all over the place. With the numerous civilian casualities, I'm guessing we've killed a few bad guys as well.

Besides, just the concept is wrong.

[kalm]

Sorry - but if you join an enemy military force to fight against the US - to me you've sacrificed your right to protection under our Consitution.

Who should decide that is debatable, but the premise is not, IMO.

Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That's just the essence of war. That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained. But combat is not what we're talking about here. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.

As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death. What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist. Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released. That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.

So if the government claims it, it must be true?

Ever heard of Randy Weaver?

[89Hen]

With the numerous civilian casualities, I'm guessing we've killed a few bad guys as well.

But we're talking about concern for US citizens, no? I might have misunderstood the article.

[danefan]

Sorry - but if you join an enemy military force to fight against the US - to me you've sacrificed your right to protection under our Consitution.

Who should decide that is debatable, but the premise is not, IMO.

Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That's just the essence of war. That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained. But combat is not what we're talking about here. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.

As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death. What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist. Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released. That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.

So if the government claims it, it must be true?

Ever heard of Randy Weaver?

I don't think you can use common "battlefield" boundaries fighting an enemy that wears no uniform and has not home base or even country for that matter.

And of course I don't believe everything the government says, but if the CIA/Special Forces have intel on US Citizens that are actively assisting or participating with Al Qaeda, then I say let them decide whether its possible to arrest them. The orders are that they "can" use deadly force if necessary right? They don't have to use it. You're talking about special forces and CIA with extensive training...not kids just following vague orders of the President or a commanding office 5 miles back.

Maybe its naive to believe that the men working on the intel would have a little conscience before pulling the trigger?

[kalm]

Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That's just the essence of war. That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained. But combat is not what we're talking about here. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.

As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death. What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist. Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released. That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.

So if the government claims it, it must be true?

Ever heard of Randy Weaver?

I don't think you can use common "battlefield" boundaries fighting an enemy that wears no uniform and has not home base or even country for that matter.

And of I don't believe everything the government says, but if the CIA/Special Forces have intel on US Citizens that are actively assisting or participating with Al Qaeda, then I say let them decide whether its possible to arrest them. You're talking about special forces and CIA...not kids just following vague orders of the President or a commanding office 5 miles back.

Maybe its naive to believe that the men working on the intel would have a little conscience before pulling the trigger?

That in and of itself is a naive statement.

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

[danefan]

I don't think you can use common "battlefield" boundaries fighting an enemy that wears no uniform and has not home base or even country for that matter.

And of I don't believe everything the government says, but if the CIA/Special Forces have intel on US Citizens that are actively assisting or participating with Al Qaeda, then I say let them decide whether its possible to arrest them. You're talking about special forces and CIA...not kids just following vague orders of the President or a commanding office 5 miles back.

Maybe its naive to believe that the men working on the intel would have a little conscience before pulling the trigger?

That in and of itself is a naive statement.

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

I edited my statement, not that will likely matter to you.

I don't hate the Constitution at all. I just think its flexible and sometimes its more flexible than others. Sorry - sometimes dirty shit has to be done for the betterment of the country and our safety. We all want to feel safe and secure at home but we don't want to know what we had to do to get that way.

[danefan]

I just want to be clear. I don't like the practice, but I believe that it may just be a necessary evil.

[bobbythekidd]

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

Because he was a shithead.

[danefan]

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

Because he was a shithead.

[kalm]

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

Because he was a shithead.

Evidently Reagan was too.

A 1981 Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan provides: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." Before the Geneva Conventions were first enacted, Abraham Lincoln -- in the middle of the Civil War -- directed Francis Lieber to articulate rules of conduct for war, and those were then incorporated into General Order 100, signed by Lincoln in April, 1863. Here is part of what it provided, in Section IX, entitled "Assassinations":


The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.


Can anyone remotely reconcile that righteous proclamation with what the Obama administration is doing? And more generally, what legal basis exists for the President to unilaterally compile hit lists of American citizens he wants to be killed?

[kalm]

I just want to be clear. I don't like the practice, but I believe that it may just be a necessary evil.

So the ends justify the means. Got it.

What happens when a name gets mis-spelled and you end up on a terror watch list? Christ, isn't AZ griz on the no fly list?

What if your views become unpopular to those with the ability to label you as an enemy combatant?

You're going to rely upon mistake prone humans or those with an axe to grind to provide your due process?

Give me a break.

[danefan]

I just want to be clear. I don't like the practice, but I believe that it may just be a necessary evil.

So the ends justify the means. Got it.

What happens when a name gets mis-spelled and you end up on a terror watch list? Christ, isn't AZ griz on the no fly list?

What if your views become unpopular to those with the ability to label you as an enemy combatant?

You're going to rely upon mistake prone humans or those with an axe to grind to provide your due process?

Give me a break.

I get your point, but I have a hard time extending the logic above to people living in Yemen and dealing with known Al Qaeda operatives.

[bobbythekidd]

Isn't assassination the job description of a sniper?

[Ibanez]

I don't think you can use common "battlefield" boundaries fighting an enemy that wears no uniform and has not home base or even country for that matter.

And of I don't believe everything the government says, but if the CIA/Special Forces have intel on US Citizens that are actively assisting or participating with Al Qaeda, then I say let them decide whether its possible to arrest them. You're talking about special forces and CIA...not kids just following vague orders of the President or a commanding office 5 miles back.

Maybe its naive to believe that the men working on the intel would have a little conscience before pulling the trigger?

That in and of itself is a naive statement.

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

If you knew anything about Lincoln, you'd hate him to.

[Ibanez]

Isn't assassination the job description of a sniper?

That's different! Snipers are invisible to thier enemy, therefore they don't exist.



DUH!

[andy7171]

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

Because he was a shithead.

Stovepipe hat hater!

[Ibanez]

Because he was a shithead.

Stovepipe hat hater!

I think they are pretentious.

[kalm]

So the ends justify the means. Got it.

What happens when a name gets mis-spelled and you end up on a terror watch list? Christ, isn't AZ griz on the no fly list?

What if your views become unpopular to those with the ability to label you as an enemy combatant?

You're going to rely upon mistake prone humans or those with an axe to grind to provide your due process?

Give me a break.

I get your point, but I have a hard time extending the logic above to people living in Yemen and dealing with known Al Qaeda operatives.

The key here is due process. When we are killing, torturing, and incarcerating innocent people or people who have not received the right to a fair judgement, all of our pious liberty, freedom, and constitutional arguments get shattered.

[kalm]

That in and of itself is a naive statement.

Why do you hate the constitution and Abe Lincoln so much?

If you knew anything about Lincoln, you'd hate him to.

Oh please enlighten me.

[andy7171]

If ever there were a need for The CitDog.