I loled in my pants reading burro's reaction to this

[Edited on October 1, 2011 at 5:43 PM. Reason : !]

10/1/2011 5:33:30 PM

aaronburro, your standards here continue to be absurd. If we applied your logic beyond merely "things Obama did so you automatically hate them," then the entire war in Afghanistan is illegal and any extrajudicial death of any unlawful combatant is a crime. That's quite an allegation to make. We've been blowing up and shooting these assholes for a decade now; it seems more than a little suspect that you only become enraged at the injustice of it all.

Quote :

"I said, instead, that it may be murky and debatable when the guy is not a US citizen, but when he is, there is no doubt."

It amounts to the same thing. You're saying that maybe non-citizens have no rights. The right to not get killed is pretty fundamental; if there's any debate about that one, then there's debate about all of them. At the very least, you're holding the two groups to different legal standards.

Quote :

"now explain that in light of the 5th Amendment."

The most obvious explanation that springs to mind was that he was not executed for a crime, he was killed as an enemy combatant. We did the same thing with Yamamoto in WWII, designing an operation specifically to kill him (and which ended up working, unlike similar plots we no doubt had against Hitler and others). He was a high-level enemy combatant whose individual death would represent a strategic victory in the conflict. Ditto Awlaki.

10/1/2011 10:03:22 PM

Quote :

"We've been blowing up and shooting these assholes for a decade now"

Two decades.

10/1/2011 10:06:20 PM

Quote :

"then the entire war in Afghanistan is illegal"

orly? do splain.

Quote :

"any extrajudicial death of any unlawful combatant is a crime."

not at all. You shoot a guy on the battlefield who is pointing a gun at you, it's A-OK. no need for a trial for that.

Quote :

"You're saying that maybe non-citizens have no rights."

Which is a far cry from saying that they do, indeed, have zero rights, and we should go ahead and drown them. It's to point out the difference in the two cases, not to say that the other case certainly allows for torture. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend that.

Quote :

"At the very least, you're holding the two groups to different legal standards."

Only because, legally, there may, in fact, BE two different standards.

Quote :

"The most obvious explanation that springs to mind was that he was not executed for a crime, he was killed as an enemy combatant."

really? he was on the battlefield, pointing a gun at someone? ooooooooooh, let me guess, EVERYWHERE is now the battlefield, right? That includes your home. Now all Obama has to do is say you are a terrorist. You are in your house? Welp, that's the battlefield!

Quote :

"We did the same thing with Yamamoto in WWII, designing an operation specifically to kill him (and which ended up working, unlike similar plots we no doubt had against Hitler and others)."

Funny. Yamamoto was actually WEARING A UNIFORM, FLYING IN A PLANE MARKED WITH THE EMBLEM OF A NATION AGAINST WHOM WE WERE AT WAR. you don't see a difference? because I sure as fuck do. His status as an actual enemy combatant was all but assured, even in a legal sense. We shot down an aircraft of a belligerent nation. That's MASSIVELY different than the president, without review, declaring a man a terrorist and ordering his execution.

[Edited on October 1, 2011 at 11:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2011 11:14:14 PM

Quote :

"not at all. You shoot a guy on the battlefield who is pointing a gun at you, it's A-OK. no need for a trial for that."

Do you have any idea how many bad guys get killed (or at least captured and held without trial) in Afghanistan in circumstances other than them actively engaging in combat against us at that moment? Hell, they don't get the benefit of the President of the Motherfucking United States personally signing off on it.

I will go out on a limb and say that the overwhelming majority of high-level Al Qaeda/Haqanni/etc bad guys don't get smoked in firefights. That's more for the rank and file or low/mid-level leaders. Most of the important guys are just going about their business, and then BAM! A Hellfire or JDAM or AC-130 or special forces team shows up.



I understand the slippery slope argument, but get back to me when we start carrying out air strikes in American suburbia. Fuck al-Awlaki with a knife. Good riddance.

[Edited on October 2, 2011 at 12:16 AM. Reason : Also, he married his cousin AND was arrested for soliciting prostitutes.]

10/2/2011 12:06:11 AM

thats fine and dandy but thats the other slippery slope that is not as scary as the one we are talking about. the one where the government "names" you a terrorist and then kills you without proving you are a terrorist. Killing a terrorist is one thing, killing someone who is with a terrorist is a whole nother can of tomatoes.

10/2/2011 1:19:38 AM

Two thoughts. I would love to know the truth, what turns a guy from bleeding heart, anti war, anti bush, anti gitmo, Nobel peace prize winner, into a Lybia stomping, execution ordering, bin laden busting, gitmo supporting hawk? There has to be a severe gap in what the public is privy to and the threats to this country to explain his flip. PS the largest threat to this country presently is our financial situation by far maybe, this is more side show to distract the masses from the impending collapse.

10/2/2011 3:13:11 AM

Quote :

"There has to be a severe gap in what the public is privy to and the threats to this country"

well duh

10/2/2011 3:36:26 AM

Quote :

"Also, he married his cousin AND was arrested for soliciting prostitutes."

1) Where did he marry his cousin? If in the US, is it illegal in the US to marry one's cousin? If it is, how did he manage to do it? If outside the US, it doesn't matter. That's standard practice for millions of people.

2) I would like to see a source for the soliciting prostitutes part. Quite surprised by it.

10/2/2011 4:19:46 AM

Quote :

"not at all. You shoot a guy on the battlefield who is pointing a gun at you, it's A-OK. no need for a trial for that."

Oh. It's a pity we spent all that time developing missiles, planes, bombs, artillery, and any other long-range weapon designed to kill opponents before they can aim a gun at you. The "battlefield" is a stupid concept in relation to terrorism anyway. Everyone on our side wishes their were a battlefield. We're pretty good at that kind of fighting.

Quote :

"Only because, legally, there may, in fact, BE two different standards."

I think the only way in which there are two standards here is that you can't quite bring yourself to oppose killing Osama, but this other guy is minor enough that you think you can use him to bludgeon Obama.

Quote :

"Yamamoto was actually WEARING A UNIFORM, FLYING IN A PLANE MARKED WITH THE EMBLEM OF A NATION AGAINST WHOM WE WERE AT WAR."

Once again, we wish these assholes wore uniforms and had planes. Yeah, a uniform marks you clearly as a combatant. That's the whole fucking point of the Geneva convention guidelines that say you have to have a uniform of some sort in order to qualify as a lawful combatant.

But I've gotta say, I'm legitimately lol-ing at the irony of you defending the targeted killing of a man who liked America and vocally opposed starting a war with America while being outraged about the targeted killing of a man who made a career out of hating America and encouraging everybody who would listen to attack it.

10/2/2011 9:35:53 AM

Quote :

" killing of a man who made a career out of hating America"

so its cool to kill people for hating america.

I guess syria has done no wrong because they are killing people who hate syria.

10/2/2011 1:46:53 PM

Why didn't you quote his entire sentence instead of cherry picking?

10/2/2011 1:56:54 PM

Quote :

"orly? do splain."

The entire war in Afghanistan is being fought against uniformless militant groups openly at war with the United States, just like AQAP.

[Edited on October 2, 2011 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2011 3:52:48 PM

The guy came to lead an effort to violently attack U.S. citizens. At that point, he became an enemy combatant. Therefore, he is a threat who must be eliminated.

10/2/2011 4:05:06 PM

Quote :

"Why didn't you quote his entire sentence instead of cherry picking?"

because the rest is just unsubstantiated claims.

10/2/2011 4:42:47 PM

Quote :

"encouraging everybody who would listen to attack it."

Is not an unsubstantiated claim. But that's ok. You're trolling.

10/2/2011 5:32:23 PM

LOL

Hey, uh, Mr. Terrorist, did you fill out your "I want to be a terrorist" forms and send them to the state department? Did you receive and return your "renounce my citizenship" package? We'll need that in order to process things. K, thanks.

This guy was no longer a citizen.
Our rights for citizens no longer applied to him.
This guy was a foreign combatant.
This guy was at war with the U.S.
This guy was killed in a foreign land, in an area known to house terrorists, with his fellow soldiers.

Soccer mom in suburbia has no worry over a "slippy slope"

10/3/2011 8:32:02 AM

There is no slope. We are already off the precipice.

10/3/2011 11:51:01 AM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

10/3/2011 1:05:49 PM

Quote :

"Fuck al-Awlaki with a knife. Good riddance."

10/3/2011 1:08:33 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

10/3/2011 3:45:55 PM

10/3/2011 5:23:49 PM

DAT ASSassination

10/3/2011 5:29:45 PM

Quote :

"I understand the slippery slope argument, but get back to me when we start carrying out air strikes in American suburbia."

that's just it. this isn't slippery slope, Duke. this isn't "a vote for this today leads to a new bill tomorrow that does something worse." This is "allowing this course of action explicitly allows this other horrible course of action." The reason we oppose this now is because there is no new policy to oppose later. I'm not saying Obama's gonna be mowing down suburbia tomorrow. Just that this policy allows him or whoever to do it whenever. And it probably won't be in the context of terrorism, either,

Quote :

"Do you have any idea how many bad guys get killed (or at least captured and held without trial) in Afghanistan in circumstances other than them actively engaging in combat against us at that moment?"

doesn't make it right. don't get me wrong, I like that AQ guys are getting offed. I just don't like the way it's being done.

Quote :

"Oh. It's a pity we spent all that time developing missiles, planes, bombs, artillery, and any other long-range weapon designed to kill opponents before they can aim a gun at you. The "battlefield" is a stupid concept in relation to terrorism anyway. Everyone on our side wishes their were a battlefield. We're pretty good at that kind of fighting."

might as well use these pretty guns we got here. who gives a fuck if it's the right thing to do... fuck it, mow down that school! little Jimmy was named a terrorist by mr. O!

Quote :

"I think the only way in which there are two standards here is that you can't quite bring yourself to oppose killing Osama, but this other guy is minor enough that you think you can use him to bludgeon Obama."

While I'm glad that Osama is sleepin with the fishies tonight, I do wish we could have brought him in alive.

Quote :

"But I've gotta say, I'm legitimately lol-ing at the irony of you defending the targeted killing of a man who liked America and vocally opposed starting a war with America while being outraged about the targeted killing of a man who made a career out of hating America and encouraging everybody who would listen to attack it."

I haven't, until now, said that I have reservations about how the Osama thing went down. Some sources say we went in, guns blazing, and didn't try to capture him. If so, that was the wrong thing to do.

Quote :

"Once again, we wish these assholes wore uniforms and had planes. Yeah, a uniform marks you clearly as a combatant. That's the whole fucking point of the Geneva convention guidelines that say you have to have a uniform of some sort in order to qualify as a lawful combatant. "

Which is kind of why, as I've said before, there needs to be some way that we, as a nation, draw a distinction between these assholes and innocent civilians. Preferably, it'd be a way that involves a legitimate trial of some sort.

Quote :

"The guy came to lead an effort to violently attack U.S. citizens. At that point, he became an enemy combatant. Therefore, he is a threat who must be eliminated."

Based on what proven court of law or reasonable facsimile of a trial? Do you not see the folly of convicting someone in the court of public opinion and then executing them? We call such things lynchings where I come from.

Quote :

"This guy was no longer a citizen."

according to... did he fill out the renunciation paperwork? no? then he's still a citizen. Try that with the IRS one day and see how hard they laugh at you.

Quote :

"This guy was a foreign combatant. This guy was at war with the U.S."

as proven by what court?

Quote :

"This guy was killed in a foreign land, in an area known to house terrorists, with his fellow soldiers."

So, guilt by simply being in a foreign land where bad people are present. I guess everyone in Compton or Harlem must be a drug dealer, too, right?

10/3/2011 9:38:25 PM

enemy combatants of foreign powers engaged in battle do not receive trials.

10/3/2011 9:39:28 PM

and to what foreign combatant nation does Al Qaeda belong? do you not understand that by assuming someone to be a foreign combatant, you have already assumed his guilt? Do you not see the problem with that? All I need do now is say that you are an enemy combatant, and, by your standards, I declare you guilty and you can be executed. do you not see a problem with that?

do you assume that every person in Gitmo is an enemy combatant? why is that?

[Edited on October 3, 2011 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2011 9:41:52 PM

enemy combatants of foreign powers engaged in battle do not receive trials.

10/3/2011 9:49:57 PM

and to what foreign combatant nation does Al Qaeda belong? do you not understand that by assuming someone to be a foreign combatant, you have already assumed his guilt? Do you not see the problem with that? All I need do now is say that you are an enemy combatant, and, by your standards, I declare you guilty and you can be executed. do you not see a problem with that?

do you assume that every person in Gitmo is an enemy combatant? why is that?

10/3/2011 10:06:30 PM

Quote :

"might as well use these pretty guns we got here. who gives a fuck if it's the right thing to do..."

Are you suggesting that the only legitimate form of warfare involves ground troops firing at one another?

Quote :

"there needs to be some way that we, as a nation, draw a distinction between these assholes and innocent civilians. Preferably, it'd be a way that involves a legitimate trial of some sort."

Then we might as well surrender. There's no way to bring every Taliban/Al Qaeda/etc. member who doesn't happen to be pointing a gun at us when we find him to trial.

Quote :

"according to... did he fill out the renunciation paperwork? no? then he's still a citizen. Try that with the IRS one day and see how hard they laugh at you."

The "paperwork" consists of signing an oath in the presence of state department officer at an embassy or consulate. If I'm a guy planning on conducting a campaign of terror against the United States, going to one of those locations (where I can be arrested) and officially renouncing my citizenship (especially when I'm already suspected of doing bad things) probably doesn't seem like a good idea. At worst, they put me in cuffs on the spot. At best, my refusal to do so allows me to try to make the spurious claims you're making here.

Incidentally, renunciation of citizenship does not absolve a person of their tax obligations. Not central to the discussion, of course, but it does again demonstrate that your knowledge of the legalities here is tenuous at best.

Quote :

"and to what foreign combatant nation does Al Qaeda belong?"

He said foreign "powers," not "nations." In academic discussion the two would probably be the same, but I'm going to assume wdprice either isn't a scholar in the field or isn't writing for a scholarly audience here on the wolfweb.

Quote :

"All I need do now is say that you are an enemy combatant, and, by your standards, I declare you guilty and you can be executed."

The term "executed" implies a laundry list of circumstances that don't apply here: the action was not a punishment, was not applied to a detained person by law enforcement authorities, and took place abroad in a combat situation. At best you can say "assassinated."

The difficulty remains that your standard of proof would have to be applied to any insurgent/Taliban/al Qaeda/whatever who is:

1) Not in uniform. (none of them are)
2) Not pointing a gun at US or coalition forces at the moment they are encountered.

By this standard no action involved in the war on terror is acceptable. Come to that, most deaths since the advent of ranged weapons would be unacceptable. If I'm a longbowman at Crecy and I see some guy without a uniform (those being rare in those days) or taking a piss such that he couldn't brandish his weapon, I'd have to stop and ask him to surrender so we could investigate and try him. During the Revolutionary, Napoleonic, and Civil Wars -- forget it, the whole system involved shooting at people who weren't pointing guns at you, either because they still had them on their shoulders or were reloading them. Every war since the invention of the airplane? Nope. Any time you drop a bomb, you're violating the aaronburro standard of conflict, which apparently says that all wars must be fought by individual pairs from opposing sides fighting duels with each other. (In uniform, of course, and only when representing a recognized nation).

10/4/2011 12:17:19 AM

Hey you sumbitch, I'm a scholar AND gentleman.

10/4/2011 8:28:15 AM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that the only legitimate form of warfare involves ground troops firing at one another?"

no. I was mocking the statement I was referring to. Read it with an air of sarcasm and you might get the point.

Quote :

"Then we might as well surrender. There's no way to bring every Taliban/Al Qaeda/etc. member who doesn't happen to be pointing a gun at us when we find him to trial."

nice false dilemma. nowhere did I say we couldn't or shouldn't kill people pointing guns at us. nor would I suggest that.

Quote :

"The "paperwork" consists of signing an oath in the presence of state department officer at an embassy or consulate. If I'm a guy planning on conducting a campaign of terror against the United States, going to one of those locations (where I can be arrested) and officially renouncing my citizenship (especially when I'm already suspected of doing bad things) probably doesn't seem like a good idea. At worst, they put me in cuffs on the spot. At best, my refusal to do so allows me to try to make the spurious claims you're making here."

very true. but the point still stands. the legal requirement of renunciation of citizenship had not occurred.

Quote :

"The term "executed" implies a laundry list of circumstances that don't apply here: the action was not a punishment, was not applied to a detained person by law enforcement authorities, and took place abroad in a combat situation."

Really? Hanging out in a house is a "combat situation"? Hey, when I go do a drive by shooting, can I claim that is a "combat situation" now?

Quote :

" By this standard no action involved in the war on terror is acceptable. Come to that, most deaths since the advent of ranged weapons would be unacceptable. If I'm a longbowman at Crecy and I see some guy without a uniform (those being rare in those days) or taking a piss such that he couldn't brandish his weapon, I'd have to stop and ask him to surrender so we could investigate and try him. During the Revolutionary, Napoleonic, and Civil Wars -- forget it, the whole system involved shooting at people who weren't pointing guns at you, either because they still had them on their shoulders or were reloading them. Every war since the invention of the airplane? Nope. Any time you drop a bomb, you're violating the aaronburro standard of conflict, which apparently says that all wars must be fought by individual pairs from opposing sides fighting duels with each other. (In uniform, of course, and only when representing a recognized nation)."

now you've just devolved into pure lunacy. let's see. you can drop a bomb on an nation with whom you are at war. seems pretty obvious. The guy reloading his weapon is clearly on the field of battle and holding a fucking gun and loading it, much less wearing some kind of uniform. moreover, nowhere did I say that someone had to be pointing a gun at you in order for you to shoot back at them. lunacy combined with a strawman for full effect.

Quote :

"The difficulty remains that your standard of proof would have to be applied to any insurgent/Taliban/al Qaeda/whatever who is: 1) Not in uniform. (none of them are) 2) Not pointing a gun at US or coalition forces at the moment they are encountered."

how convenient, again, that you are assuming any random person to be an insurgent, Taliban, or al Qaeda. Do you not see the fucking problem with this assumption? Or, again, is every single person sitting in Gitmo definitely a terrorist?

10/5/2011 5:52:28 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

10/6/2011 11:49:46 AM

Quote :

"nice false dilemma. nowhere did I say we couldn't or shouldn't kill people pointing guns at us. nor would I suggest that."

Right. That's why I said "who doesn't happen to be pointing guns at us."

Quote :

"Really? Hanging out in a house is a "combat situation"?"

More of the same. Our standard for viable military targets can't be "people who are not actively shooting at us at the moment we find them."

Quote :

"you can drop a bomb on an nation with whom you are at war. seems pretty obvious..."

And so on and so on. Except it's not obvious, especially in a modern war in which our opponents have figured out that their best bet to avoid getting killed is to avoid uniforms, hide their weapons, and generally try to blend into the population.

Quote :

"you are assuming any random person to be an insurgent, Taliban, or al Qaeda."

No, I'm not. I'm saying that, by your standards, even if they are al Qaeda, we have to arrest them unless they're actively engaged in violence against us.

10/6/2011 8:31:56 PM

Quote :

"More of the same. Our standard for viable military targets can't be "people who are not actively shooting at us at the moment we find them.""

not at all, because your new standard is intentionally and dangerously vague. If anywhere is the battlefield, then anyone can be labeled a terrorist. It, again, means there is no distinction between your house in RTP and a tent in bumfuckistan.

Quote :

"No, I'm not. I'm saying that, by your standards, even if they are al Qaeda, we have to arrest them unless they're actively engaged in violence against us."

I'm not saying we have to arrest everyone. I'm saying that our first impulse shouldn't be to blow people away and then ask questions. Terrorism is not entirely military activity. Nor is it entirely criminal activity. and what's wrong with that? What's wrong with making an honest attempt to round up supposed leaders? I'm not as worried about the random fucks running around doing the dirty work, as they really aren't a threat. While it is certainly true that Al Qaeda can be hydra-esque, that doesn't mean it is necessary to grab every single foot soldier to destroy it. What bothers me, though, is this immediate assumption that someone is a terrorist the moment they are accused of it. Surely you aren't in favour of convicting people in the court of public opinion without an actual trial and then having them killed. Instead, you are saying that it's either we shoot everyone on sight or we don't try to shoot at anyone, and that's a false dilemma. Moreover, nowhere have I ever said we shouldn't shoot at anyone.

Quote :

"And so on and so on. Except it's not obvious"

except it is obvious in the absurd example you gave. I'm well aware that there is a huge fucking gray area here. I just prefer to be closer the side of law and due process as opposed to the side of fuck people's rights. Surely you can appreciate that idea, can't you?

[Edited on October 7, 2011 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2011 8:45:04 PM

Quote :

"What bothers me, though, is this immediate assumption that someone is a terrorist the moment they are accused of it."

This is one of the unfortunate realities of war. If you look like al Qaeda, act like al Qaeda, and disseminate videos of yourself proudly proclaiming to be al Qaeda, then you can probably count on being treated like al Qaeda by the US military.

Quote :

"Surely you aren't in favour of convicting people in the court of public opinion without an actual trial and then having them killed."

I am always in support of adding layers of accountability to anything the government does. I, too, would like to see some kind of judicial review applied to targeted killings. This is one of many issues that the US and the rest of the world really needs to develop a uniform legal framework for. But, as of today, they haven't. The US military's actions against al Qaeda are guided pretty much exclusively by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed days after 9/11, which reads:

Quote :

"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."

The Fifth Amendment does not apply to congressionally sanctioned military operations against armed militant organizations in the remote and basically lawless tribal areas of Yemen.

That doesn't mean terrorists can't be arrested, of course. In most cases, suspected terrorists will be subject to both criminal charges and military strikes, depending on the situation. And if the suspects are arrested by police, to be tried on criminal charges, then all of their rights would of course be afforded them.

But when you're hiding out in a remote village in Yemen under the protection of armed militants while continuing to recruit and propagandize for a group that Congress has authorized the military to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against, you've rather defined for yourself which type of justice is going to be brought to you.

10/8/2011 9:18:19 AM

I, for one, appreciate an opaque government.

10/8/2011 10:44:45 AM

Quote :

"This is one of the unfortunate realities of war. If you look like al Qaeda, act like al Qaeda, and disseminate videos of yourself proudly proclaiming to be al Qaeda, then you can probably count on being treated like al Qaeda by the US military."

Which, in some circumstances, is understandable, such as when there is a firefight. But, how would you like it if tomorrow the President declared that you looked and acted like Al Qaeda and then ordered your death on that alone?

Quote :

"The Fifth Amendment does not apply to congressionally sanctioned military operations against armed militant organizations in the remote and basically lawless tribal areas of Yemen. "

So, how long until the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to congressionally sanctioned military options in Alabama?

Quote :

"But when you're hiding out in a remote village in Yemen under the protection of armed militants while continuing to recruit and propagandize for a group that Congress has authorized the military to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against, you've rather defined for yourself which type of justice is going to be brought to you."

And, again, you've ASSUMED him to be a terrorist, hiding out somewhere. The mere act of being in that area doesn't make you a terrorist, nor does it make you be "hiding out there".

10/8/2011 12:30:21 PM

Quote :

"But, how would you like it if tomorrow the President declared that you looked and acted like Al Qaeda and then ordered your death on that alone?"

I would be pretty upset, given that I have never associated myself either privately or publicly with that organization. Killing me, therefore, would be a mistake, which unfortunately happens from time to time during the course of war. What you're saying could be applied to every military conflict in history. The military does not have to get grand jury indictments every time it wants to take out enemy combatants, regardless of whether those combatants are actively shooting at them or not. When the military is at war, the threshold for proof is lowered. If it wasn't, the military would be rendered completely impotent.

Quote :

"So, how long until the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to congressionally sanctioned military options in Alabama?"

There are plenty of scenarios in which it already wouldn't.

Quote :

"And, again, you've ASSUMED him to be a terrorist, hiding out somewhere. The mere act of being in that area doesn't make you a terrorist, nor does it make you be "hiding out there"."

The strength of my argument is not diminished by your being too lazy to adequately inform yourself. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his having joined AQAP is well documented. And even if it wasn't, the military, when engaged in a legally sanctioned conflict, is not required to ask grand juries back home to verify its intelligence before acting on it.

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 12:58:15 PM

Quote :

"When the military is at war, the threshold for proof is lowered."

so, then, as long as we are at war, fuck the Constitution, right?

Quote :

"The military does not have to get grand jury indictments every time it wants to take out enemy combatants,"

and, AGAIN, you are assuming someone as an enemy combatant, simply because someone else says so.

Quote :

"There are plenty of scenarios in which it already wouldn't. "

and you are A-OK with that? good.

Quote :

"The strength of my argument is not diminished by your being too lazy to adequately inform yourself. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his having joined AQAP is well documented. "

in the court of public opinion. I'm well aware that this guy was a dbag. Doesn't change the actual rights that he has and that those rights were completely ignored for convenience.

Quote :

"And even if it wasn't, the military, when engaged in a legally sanctioned conflict, is not required to ask grand juries back home to verify its intelligence before acting on it."

and, AGAIN, assuming guilt.

10/8/2011 1:31:40 PM

you can get yourself all worked up

can't wait to see you when obama gets re-elected

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM. Reason : god damn soap box is a horrible place]

10/8/2011 3:56:29 PM

with who the front-runners are in the republican trenches, we're fucked either way.

10/8/2011 4:38:51 PM

Quote :

"so, then, as long as we are at war, fuck the Constitution, right?"

The Constitution does not restrict the military's ability to target and eliminate its enemies.

Quote :

"in the court of public opinion."

No, as in the publicly available videos he made of himself declaring as much. And reams of journalistic reporting on the man. And information made available by US intelligence services. But, again, it's a moot point. If the military has been given Congressional authorization to target al Qaeda and its associates, then it is not required to rely on anything other than its own intelligence in determining who fits that definition. As I said, I too would like to see some system in place that could provide a degree of oversight for such determinations, even if it's done ex post facto. But to suggest that it should have to run every suspected al Qaeda member by a federal grand jury back in the US before taking action is totally ridiculous - and not legally required under the Constitution or any other law.

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 5:20:00 PM

Quote :

"The Constitution does not restrict the military's ability to target and eliminate its enemies. "

Which is great. Until you are unilaterally declared an enemy by the President.

Quote :

"No, as in the publicly available videos he made of himself declaring as much. And reams of journalistic reporting on the man. And information made available by US intelligence services."

which is the court of public opinion.

Quote :

"But, again, it's a moot point. If the military has been given Congressional authorization to target al Qaeda and its associates, then it is not required to rely on anything other than its own intelligence in determining who fits that definition."

so, again, if they say you are a terrorist, then that's awesome! fuck a trial!

Quote :

"But to suggest that it should have to run every suspected al Qaeda member by a federal grand jury back in the US before taking action is totally ridiculous"

Except we're not talking about every suspected AQ member. We're talking about a specific alleged one who is a US citizen and has certain rights like not having a bomb dropped on his head simply because the president says so.

10/8/2011 5:40:12 PM

Get over it.

10/8/2011 7:37:24 PM

Quote :

"What's wrong with making an honest attempt to round up supposed leaders?"

The fact that it necessarily entails greater loss of life on our side. The fact that doing so is likely to violate international law -- you're not supposed to go into another country and grab somebody. It has happened before, but it's not legal. Pakistan could have made a huge fuss over the Osama operation on legal grounds, but they're not stupid. They know we were already pissed off that the guy was there.

So we're trashing one set of laws and throwing lives away solely for the purpose of satisfying your disingenuous desire to put on a show trial.

Quote :

"except it is obvious in the absurd example you gave"

OK. So you'd have no problem with this operation if we'd just declared war on Yemen first? After all, it's OK to drop a bomb on an enemy nation with whom we are at war.

10/9/2011 11:50:12 PM

Quote :

"OK. So you'd have no problem with this operation if we'd just declared war on Yemen first? After all, it's OK to drop a bomb on an enemy nation with whom we are at war."

and the absurdity and strawmen continue.

Quote :

"The fact that it necessarily entails greater loss of life on our side."

Well, shit, if we are concerned about that, why not just bomb the entire region off the map. There'd be hardly any loss of life on our side...

Quote :

"The fact that doing so is likely to violate international law -- you're not supposed to go into another country and grab somebody."

and we care because... Are you saying we can't make agreements with countries and go in and try to get people? That we can never do that? I realize that sometimes it's gonna be a problem, but just throwing your hands up and saying "fuck it, bomb em" hardly seems like the best idea. Moreover, if we can't drop a SEAL team in legally, how in the fuck do you think we can just drop bombs on random countries and it be any different?

Quote :

"So we're trashing one set of laws and throwing lives away solely for the purpose of satisfying your disingenuous desire to put on a show trial."

In both of these situations we are trashing lives. And I'm not disingenuous in wanting legitimate rule of law and not giving the President carte blanche authority to kill American citizens at will. I don't want a show trial. I want a legitimate trial and legitimate rights for the accused. Otherwise, we are just lynching people

10/11/2011 9:43:59 PM

welcome to the perpetual state of war.

10/11/2011 10:01:14 PM

Welcome? Did I pass out for a while or something?

10/11/2011 10:19:41 PM

Quote :

"and the absurdity and strawmen continue."

Hardly. For legal reasons -- at least as you "understand" them -- this is critical. Clearly you have different standards for a state of declared war between nations, and the sort of action we've been involved in since 9/11.

Quote :

"Well, shit, if we are concerned about that, why not just bomb the entire region off the map."

Because, as I suggested, it's not our only concern. Let's remember that attempted captures also generally lead to greater civilian losses. How many Somalis died when we went in to grab a handful of guys in those blackhawk helicopters? Given three options -- targeted bombing, "bombing the region off the map," and efforts to capture all these people -- guess which one involves the lower likely loss of life, period?

Quote :

"Are you saying we can't make agreements with countries and go in and try to get people? That we can never do that?"

Speaking of absurdity and straw men...no, I'm not saying that. We can make those arrangements with some governments. In some cases -- Yemen and Pakistan spring to mind -- the governments in question have not been cooperative. Either they deny outright that the guy is there (Pakistan with Osama) or they say they want their own services to handle it, even though those services are unwilling or unable to follow through (likely true with both countries).

From my understanding of the situation, we told Yemen this asshole was there, they said, "Uh, yeah, we'll get right on it," then nothing happened, so we blew him up.

Quote :

"Moreover, if we can't drop a SEAL team in legally, how in the fuck do you think we can just drop bombs on random countries and it be any different?"

My understanding is that the governments in question have been more or less cooperative as far as drone attacks go. They are less so when it comes to troops on the ground.

Quote :

"And I'm not disingenuous in wanting legitimate rule of law and not giving the President carte blanche authority to kill American citizens at will."

Your waffling on the "American citizen" qualifier is absurd. Do you get sent talking points to use, or do you actually come up with these yourself? I don't ever recall hearing you complain about drone attacks in the past. And the "but maybe it's different if they aren't people, I mean, uh, citizens" line is getting tired fast.

10/12/2011 2:06:00 AM

Change

10/12/2011 12:15:41 PM