Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
anomalocaris 05-Feb-13, 20:18	Obama can use drones to kill Americans Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans By Adam Clark Estes | The Atlantic Wire – 16 hrs ago Human rights advocates were floored on Monday night when NBC News published the details of an alarming Justice Department memo detailing the protocol for sending drones after United States citizens. It's not as if they hadn't suspected that the Obama administration's top secret drone attack protocol contained some unsavory details. They just didn't expect them to be so frightfully broad. The scoop by Michael Isikoff is actually startling not for the details but rather for the lack of details. It's very vague about a decision-making process that puts American lives on the line. Put simply, the government believes that a lethal drone attack against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaeda or b) "an associated force." One of those two qualifiers is infinitely more worrisome than the other. Going after leaders of al Qaeda makes sense. That's what the War on Terror is all about, right? Breaking down networks of violent terrorists and keeping Americans safe. If an American happens to be caught up with al Qaeda, someone like Anwar al-Awlaki, then well… they shouldn't be surprised if they're getting chased by drones. At least that's what we've been told so far. How and why these attacks are carried out by drones is also detailed in the memo, but we'll get back to that in a second. But what does "an associated force" mean? It seems like the guy who sells the terrorists bomb supplies would probably qualify, but what about the unknowing neighbor or the hired hand? Can we just kill them too in good conscience? Quite unfortunately, the government isn't exactly sure. The memo suggests that anyone who "present[s] an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States" qualifies for assassination "a lawful killing in self defense," but that "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." In other words, an "informed, high-level" official can order the killing of any American citizen that was "recently" involved in threatening "activities." As Isikoff points out, the memo fails to define both of those terms. "This is a chilling document," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated." We've already seen some of this vague authority in action. A couple of years ago, The New York Times provided some insight into how subjective the process of deciding when to kill and when not to kill American citizens based on a top secret memo that justified the killing of al-Awlaki. That document as well as this latest leak from the Justice Department essentially says that a lethal attack, likely by a drone, is the method of choice whenever a capture mission would put other American lives on the line. Again, the documents are very vague about where to draw the line. Inevitably, this latest revelation into how the Obama administration runs the War on Terror behind closed doors leads to more questions than answers. How, for instance, do they decided when to kill non-U.S. citizens? Previous reporting on the issue says that the government considers any military-aged male to be an insurgent, so it seems like pretty much anybody in the general region of Afghanistan or Pakistan could expect to find themselves in America's crosshairs. But again, we don't know because the Obama administration is keeping it completely secret, despite years worth of calls to disclose its decision-making process. This could be the beginning of an enlightening time for those who demand answers about the government's shady drone program. On Thursday, John Brannan has his confirmation hearing where the Senate will decide whether or not he's fit to run the Central Intelligence Agency. Since he's more or less the architect of America's drone war, we're sure the Senators will have a question or two about this memo and, we hope, some memos that we haven't seen before.
changeling 05-Feb-13, 22:43	What's good for the goose huh? ALL non American citizens of elsewhere are subject to this, why not Americans as well. There isn't too much screaming going on about any other nationality being possible targets. The US has indeed set themselves up as the planet's police. So be it, Americans are not exempt either. Get into your bunkers guys, the drones are coming!
thumper 05-Feb-13, 23:29	Apex predators do not become subterranean troglobites, Change. Nor do hunters become cowering prey.
changeling 06-Feb-13, 06:35	Is that supposed to mean something thumper? The US has given itself the right to attack anyone anywhere on the planet if they do not meet US criteria of being US friendly, regardless of what any other nation is opposed to (UN, NATO or any other world organization). You have the biggest gun (so be it) but expect that you (US citizens) be allowed the privilege of being immune to your own government when the rest of the planet's population is not. Americans created this monster (figuratively speaking) you call the US government, no one else! You also have the right to vote them out and change the way it operates, no one else does. We (outside of the US) have to live with the fact that at any time any one of us could be targeted for some slight against the US, seems only fair that you all do as well. 'Rendition' is such a lovely Americanism, yes?
ace-of-aces 06-Feb-13, 18:40	Obama can kill criminals ! Thanks Obama. www.cnn.com Look at the recent situation. Jimmy Lee Dykes killed a bus driver and kidnaped a kid. He held the kid hostage in his bunker. If his demands were not met, he would blow up or kill the kid. What would the law enforcement officers suppose to do? It would be very risky and may cost lives to get him alive and put on trial for his crimes. To make the story short, he was killed and the boy saved. Majority of the people are happy that it ended this way. It does not matter whether the criminal is an American or not and it does not matter what methods we use to exterminate the criminals which can be considered as pests. We use different methods of pest control. Drone is a recent invention and I believe Israel is the foremost if not the first to use drones to fight the enemy. In the near future we will see a lot of drones in US for survellance and to fight crimes and terrorism. It is an ideal tool to use and kill by a drone when the big criminals escaped into a desert or forests without much collateral damage. My only concern is to be very careful when using a drone strike unlike playing a video game. The target should be the correct one without much collateral damage. It happened in Afghanistan, drone fired on Afghan government troops which were mistaken for terrorists and also fired on a group of innocent people who were in wedding procession. My thinking is very logical. It is ideal to bring a criminal and tried at the court for justice. This not always possible and so we have the rights to defend ourselves by killing those big criminals. It does not matter whether cops or Obama kill the big criminals ( either Americans or Aliens ) or what means they use. The end justifies the means.
proginoskes 06-Feb-13, 18:50	the ends never justify the means - ever such a sentiment and ethic is the kind the stuff that leads to atrocities I am continually amazed to see anyone ever saying such things and still expect to be taken seriously
changeling 06-Feb-13, 18:55	ace That may be the case in proven criminal activity. The problem is who decides what is actual criminal activity against a nation? The laws in one nation are not necessarily those of another. What can be done or said in some contexts can be construed by others as criminal or subversive, or threatening without factual evidence. This is the danger of unnamed people behind the use of drones. The US has set itself up as unaccountable to anyone else on the planet. How many do you think may be destroyed in future years with these drones that may well be innocent (Alien or American)? Oh well, who cares, the end justifies the means!
ace-of-aces 06-Feb-13, 19:02	Obama will clarify how he carried out drone strikes ! www.cnn.com The controversy is, Does Obama has the rights to carry out drone strikes and kill American criminals or terrorists without a court trial ( extra-judicial killing )? I gave you an example of Mr. Dykes above who hid in the bunker and resisted arrest. If some criminals or terrorists do the same and hide in remote jungle or deserts, I believe we have the rights to exterminate them by any means. What else can you do better? Shall we wait as sitting ducks and let the criminals strike you first. No way, hou-say. I believe Congress has to agree Obama's actions but make sure that obama is not very trigger happy all the time.
changeling 06-Feb-13, 19:09	So ace you are quite happy that American drones can locate and exterminate anyone on the planet for the mere suggestion of disagreeing with US mindset? This is what it really amounts to (American or not). It will not be Obama giving the go ahead in all circumstances, it will be the military, or the CIA, or Homeland Security chiefs. One must not forget that this did not start with the current administration, it is a militarily developed foresight first and foremost.
proginoskes 06-Feb-13, 19:12	Obama doesn't clarify anything and the presstitute media yes men will tell you anything he says is gold. There is no accountability on drones internally in government or externally by the media, which has refused to do it's job like it should and instead cheerleads obama in his police state shenanigans. The Dykes story is like any hostage situation where the hostage was in danger and he got shot by the federales, or at least that will be there story, and that is justified as action was taken in the face of stopping and present and immediate threat to lose of life that second. Drone strikes, especially against citizens without a trial and clearly unconstitutional and definitely sets a bad precedent, furthers the police state. This country is will soon, unfortunately, get exactly what it deserves. Everyone who voted for the man needs to remember this.
ace-of-aces 06-Feb-13, 19:29	changeling: en.wikipedia.org I agree with you that we have to be very careful in selecting the targets for drone strikes. I will give you an example of an American citizen of Yemini Arab origin. You can check his biography in details in wikipedia above. He was killed by US drone strike. How could you get him alive and put him on trial? Al-Aulaqi was born in the United States to parents from Yemen, while his father was doing graduate work at US universities. He was involved in many criminal terrorist activities. Yemini government wanted him dead or alive. Many terrorists had connections and had support from him. There is no question that he was a murderer similar to Bin Laden. I am curious that when Bin laden was raided he was unarmed and helpless. Navy seals should have brought him alive and put him on trial. What will be the consequences if Bin laden was captured alive and put him on trial like Saddam Hussein ? Even his dead body of Bin Laden was thrown out into sea. Is the US so scared to put him on trial ? There are still many terrorists in GITMO. Tell me how can we put them on trial to bring into justice? If you release them, they will attack us again. So, why don't you finish off with drone strikes? Correct me if my thinking is wrong.
changeling 06-Feb-13, 19:44	ace: I know well of this guy. You are confusing obvious known 'terrorist targets' with the right of the US government to target 'anyone, anywhere, anytime'. This has actually been in force for quite some time outside of the US. rendition policy comes to mind for a start. Only in light of recent revelation about US citizens who could also be targeted within the US is an outcry forthcoming. What we are talking about here is the future of the US and the policing of it by their own. The rest of the world are already targets of the US if it deems it appropriate. Not much outcry in the US over that. Now it has also become an internal problem, suddenly it's "no we can't have that here, it's not fair".
ace-of-aces 06-Feb-13, 19:48	Death of an American born terrorist Awlaki by drone strike! Would you like to condemn or condone Obama's killing of this terrorist-murderer by drone strike? I would like to hear from you. On September 30, 2011, in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones, based out of a secret CIA Base in Saudi Arabia, fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Aulaqi and three other suspected al-Qaeda members.[232][233][234] A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate. A Predator drone was spotted by the group, which then tried to flee in the vehicle.[235] According to U.S. sources, the strike was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA. U.S. President Barack Obama said: The death of Awlaki is a major blow to Al-Qaeda's most active operational affiliate. He took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans ... and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda. [The strike] is further proof that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world.[232] Yemen's Defense Ministry announced that al-Aulaqi had been killed in the country.[236][237] Also killed was Samir Khan, an American born in Saudi Arabia, who was editor of al-Qaeda's English-language web magazine, Inspire.[238] Blogger and current columnist for The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, argued that killing Aulaqi violated his First Amendment right of free speech.[239] and doing so outside of a criminal proceeding violated the Constitution's due process clause. He mentioned doubt among Yemenese experts about Aulaqi's role in Al Qaida, and called United States government accusations against him unverified and lacking in evidence.[240] Another American critic of the War on Terror Paul Craig Roberts wrote Aulaqi gave "sermons critical of Washington’s indiscriminate assaults on Muslim peoples" who "told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression." He called the operation "The Day America Died" as the U.S. lacked evidence either Aulaqi or Khan were real threats or Al Qaeda operatives.[241
changeling 06-Feb-13, 19:52	If they had definite proof of terrorist activities against any nation as evidence for the strike, so be it. If not it is murder for ideology, pure and simple. Notice that Obama was not the person who ordered the strike!
ace-of-aces 06-Feb-13, 19:59	Drones over US in the near future. changeling: I can understand your concern but Genie ( technology of drone ) is out. We can't put back the Genie into the bottle. From stone age, fire to nuclear age, we can use technology for both good and bad purpose. Either we like it or not, it does not matter and we have to live with it. Be prepared.
ace-of-aces 06-Feb-13, 20:33	Debate on who can kill American citizens. www.nytimes.com There is an intersting debate on this subject in IHT above. If you are interested please go there.
changeling 06-Feb-13, 20:42	Yes I know the genie is out: Having the knowledge and the firepower to use this technology without just cause is exactly what the US intends anywhere. Woe betide when some of the other superpowers get the same technology up and running. Will the world be grateful to the US then?
thumper 06-Feb-13, 21:23	Drone strikes are a natural evolution (of cruise missile, artillery and areal bombardment) in an attempt to limit or mitigate collateral damage and death of civilians when engaging enemy combatants (soldiers) and that's how it was sold to (and bought by) the American people. Both left and right agree that combat operations should avoid civilian and noncombatant causalities to the best of our ability. The thing is, the Powers-That-Be have now decided that they can broadly and flexibly redefine 'combatants', 'terrorists' and 'soldiers' any way they choose and give themselves near unlimited 'license' to kill anyone they decide to call, 'enemies'. Almost anyone can now be defined as such and the weapons originally designed to limit civilian causalities can be turned into tools of assassination and murder.
softaire 06-Feb-13, 22:01	Ace You say: " The controversy is, Does Obama has the rights to carry out drone strikes and kill American criminals or terrorists without a court trial ( extra-judicial killing )? ... I believe Congress has to agree Obama's actions but make sure that obama is not very trigger happy all the time." The method to ensure that Obama does not get "trigger happy", nor do any of the people making those decisions, is called "Due Process". There needs to be a hearing, evidence presented, and a rational decision made. There needs to be documentation and then an independent arbiter (judge) makes a decision. The rules, as written, are too vague and broad. Almost anybody can be targeted for almost any reason. And, too many people can make that decision. Thumper said it best and I repeat it for emphasis: "The thing is, the Powers-That-Be have now decided that they can broadly and flexibly redefine 'combatants', 'terrorists' and 'soldiers' any way they choose and give themselves near unlimited 'license' to kill anyone they decide to call, 'enemies'. Almost anyone can now be defined as such and the weapons originally designed to limit civilian causalities can be turned into tools of assassination and murder."
softaire 07-Feb-13, 09:49	Jon Stewart talks about this... conservativebyte.com
thumper 07-Feb-13, 10:29	February 7, 2013 Assassin in Chief? By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed -- a power that no prior president is known to have exercised -- President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities. It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president's order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011. As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority. Only a few weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied both the ACLU's and New York Times' requests under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain any and all legal documents prepared in support of the president's claim of unilateral powers. While Judge McMahon was concerned that the documents "implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws not of men," she felt constrained by precedent to withhold them. Now, a bipartisan group of 11 senators has written a letter to president Obama asking for "any and all legal opinions" that describe the basis for his claimed authority to "deliberately kill American citizens." However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power. On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force." Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed -- based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution's Third Article -- those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of "targeted killing" of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized. Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense -- rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government. According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing. First, "an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." Second, capture is "infeasible." And third, the " operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles." Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard. Mimicking a judicial opinion, the White Paper employs pragmatic tests developed by the courts to supplant the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure texts. Balancing away the constitutionally protected interests of the citizen in life, liberty, and property against the more important "'realities' of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack," the Justice Department lawyers have produced a document worthy of the King Council's Court of Star Chamber -- concluding that the U.S. Constitution would not require the government to provide notice of charges, or a right to be heard, "before using lethal force" on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist activity against his country. How very convenient. The Obama administration lawyers appear to have forgotten that the Star Chamber was abolished by the English Parliament in 1641 in order to restore the rule of law adjudicated by an independent judiciary, terminating the rule of men administered by the king's courtiers. Also, conspicuously missing from the Justice Department's constitutional analysis is any recognition that the Founders already balanced the life, liberty, and property interests of an American citizen suspected of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," and provided them the specific procedural protections in Article III of the Constitution. When a U.S. citizen is suspected of treason, the constitutional remedy is not to invent new crimes subject to the summary execution at the pleasure of the president and his attorneys. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison proclaimed that the Treason Clause would protect citizens "from new-fangled and artificial treasons ... by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it[.]" To that end, the Constitution does not permit the Obama lawyers to invent an elastically defined offense of "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States," in substitution for the constitutionally concrete definition of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Moreover, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial in "open court" -- not in some secret "war room" in an undisclosed location. That same section of Article III requires proof by "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession" -- not by a unilateral "determin[ation] that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of an attack against the United States." Finally, as is true of "all crimes," Article III, Section 2 requires "trial ... by jury" on a charge of treason, not trial by some unidentified "high-level official of the U.S. government[,]" no matter how well-"informed" he may be. In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive "process" fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers. These nameless lawyers have also ignored the Justice Department's own venerable precedents. The White Paper relies on the "laws of war" -- but laws of war do not control here. On August 21, 1798, U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee -- serving under President John Adams -- directed to the U.S. secretary of state an official opinion in which he determined that in the undeclared state of war between France and the United States, "France is our enemy; and to aid, assist, and abet that nation in her maritime warfare, will be treason in a citizen[, who] may be tried and punished according to our laws[, not like a French subject, who must be] treated according to the laws of war." It is a measure of how far we have fallen as a nation -- not only that President Obama asserts and exercises such a terrible power, but that only 11 U.S. senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter to ask the Obama administration to provide its legal reasoning. If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process -- a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years. www.americanthinker.com
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 12:12	There is nothing significantly distinct from the pattern bush determination that enemy combatants were not subject to the Geneva convention. The killing of known militants who are active in global jihad who happen to have been citizens is akin to killing pirates. I would craft the language more carefully.
softaire 07-Feb-13, 12:33	Obama Gives Himself Permission To Kill Here is more on the subject by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. ******************************************************************** After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas -- even Americans -- claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week. This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in "a veritable Catch-22," because the feds have created "a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret." She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis. The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any "informed, high-level official of the U.S. government." The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed "high-level official," not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here. This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and al-Qaida-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlaki's 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend. Awlaki's American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling. Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he can't easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right. The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress. Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet. Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the president's careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders. Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home? --- Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com www.gopusa.com
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 12:51	Another right wing hack. The barrier to killing known citizen terrorists in a terrorist organization who openly support and enable attacks without public trial is that they are American citizens but we can kill non citizens doing the same thing? And it suddenly becomes a problem now that Obama is President? We cannot "arrest" these terrorists in their havens. We couldn't even arrest Osama in Pakistan. Furthermore the policy is classified anyway so debating santized, vague wording is meaningless. So far every target made sense to kill with drones.
softaire 07-Feb-13, 14:03	dm You are using this one specific example as justification for the policy. The problem is that there are NO constraints on when anybody/somebody can make the decision to kill other Americans AND there is NO definitive proof needed to make that decision. There also is NO independent oversight and there is NO requirement for any type of "due process". There is NO accountability and there is NO requirement for restraint. It all is very undefined. Are you comfortable with "the government" having authority to kill Americans with that kind of flexibility, lack of accountability, no oversight, and no justification requirements?
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 14:58	Is Have you read the entire White paper? It specifically refers only to and is limited lethal force directed against a senior operational leader of al Qaida or associate force who is also a us citizen. Sorry but extremist domestic militias not aligned with these terrorists are not included in the authorization. Further more it only applies when a high level informed official determines that the individual poses an imminent threat of attack, capture is not feasible and after monitoring remains unfeasible and the law of war principles are followed, and the host nation either consents is unable/unwilling to suppress the threat. If you are not actively working with these islamic militants who have declared war on the U.S. and are not hiding in a safe haven in some hostile or lawless area you have nothing to worry about. Hypocritical howls from right wing extremists on this issue while ignoring the trampling of human rights of enemy combatants or non citizens involved are just typical.
softaire 07-Feb-13, 17:42	dm I'll take that as a "No, you are not concerned". Let's look at some of the generalities of this policy: limited lethal force- "Limited lethal force?"... what is "Limited" lethal force? senior oper. leader of al Qaida or associate force- WHO decides if somebody is associated? when a high level informed official determines- WHO decides who/what is "High Level Official"? poses an imminent threat of attack- What is imminent? How long does it last? What evidence needs to be shown? Who gets to see that evidence? What safeguards against mistake are there? And, lastly, you say: "HYPOCRITICAL howls from right wing extremists on this issue while ignoring the trampling of human rights of enemy combatants or non citizens involved are just typical." You are willing to let the President kill American citizens without any due process, on a whim and without providing any evidence, and YET you want to given enemy combatants full legal counsel and civilian trials in NYC.
musket33r 07-Feb-13, 18:21	As far as I know, Obama was an Illinois senator in 2001. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Authorization for Use of Military Force September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23] 107th CONGRESS JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Approved September 18, 2001.
musket33r 07-Feb-13, 18:29	America has been targeting suspected Al Qaeda operatives since 2001 with no proof required of them planning to commit an atrocity regardless of their nationality, why is it eleven years later you guys are finally outraged about it?
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 19:16	The right is totally hypocritical. If it was bush they would give him a blank check and praise him. Torture and rendition were fine as long as the GOP was doing it. But... Suddenly Obama is like hitler because he killed an America who was also an al Qaeda leader active in recruiting jihadists and using his knowledge of the country to further attacks. Not to mention he was in a part of a lawless area immune from government comtroll and trying to catch him would have risked many casualties. It is Obama hating that motivates them, not principle. Anyone who studied the civil war realizes that citizens lose rights when they take up arms against their own country.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.