Obama's Kill list

[Skyrad 0]

Ok, so pop on your tin foil hats and have a peak at this...

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/obama-s-targeted-killings-lawsuit-may-spotlight-tis

Does anyone believe that this is true? (Yes DD I know you do ) but does anyone else (Apart from Rhys) believe that Obama is slotting people including Journalists and Americans citizens around the world?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnRich 4]

It's okay since it is Obama doing it.
When Bush did it, it was a war crime.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

It's okay since it is Obama doing it.
When Bush did it, it was a war crime.

Oh, I don't know. If Bush hadn't been inept, OBL would have been killed on his watch and we'd all have cheered. Of course, Bush WAS inept.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

Wow! ...read some of the comments! Makes the nanothermite nutters look sane slightly less irrational.

[kelpdiver 2]

think you need to wear a special hat to read this article.

[Skyrad 0]

I'm wearing one I made earlier, it has antenna and everything.

But there again, the POTUS can order extra judicial killings world wide so is it such a jump to believe that he's snuffed a couple of Americans as well?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[blkhwk91b 0]

I am wearing a foil hat AND I'm naked.


......ok, where is the party

"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way." - Alan Watts

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

is it such a jump ...?

Yes. It's the "jumps" that separate reality from fantasy.

[metalslug 36]

The people making these claims have a lawsuit pending against government on the issue.
Since I will assume that educated lawyers somewhere have agreed to take this case, I am reminded of lawrocket's "calling people 'stupid'" thread.

Are these 'smart' lawyers who are making easy money from their clients on a case that they know would be unwinnable?
...or are they (y'know, the other kind) ?

[Skyrad 0]

Ok, have a look at this and the links at the bottom and see what you think. I started this as a bit of a giggle as it seemed so way out there but now I'm reading and not laughing.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-groups-file-challenge-targeted-killing-u.s.

Video synopsis

http://ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The people making these claims have a lawsuit pending against government on the issue.
Since I will assume that educated lawyers somewhere have agreed to take this case, I am reminded of lawrocket's "calling people 'stupid'" thread.

Are these 'smart' lawyers who are making easy money from their clients on a case that they know would be unwinnable?
...or are they (y'know, the other kind) ?

Which other kind? Can there be any other kind?

The case was filed by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights specifically on behalf of a client of theirs. They usually represent their clients pro bono. The attorneys on the case are relatively low-salaried attorneys on their staff, teamed with an attorney in Yemen who is also handling the case pro bono.

FWIW, there are a number of press releases and articles describing the case that are a good deal less "foil hat" than the whacked-out piece linked in the OP. Here is a sample (or, people can just Google it themselves):

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/rights-groups-file-challenge-targeted-killing-us

http://ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/10/opinion/la-ed-awlaki-20101110

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/08/aclu-ccr-sue-to-stop-administrations-targeted-killings.html

[Andy9o8 2]

You posted #10 while I was researching/typing #11.

[Skyrad 0]

So it seems to be true, and if they targeted this guy then why not others?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So it seems to be true, and if they targeted this guy then why not others?

The lawsuit, as reported by sane people, is about holding the government to justiciable standards accountable to the people. The level of "jump" presumed in the first article linked in your OP, on the other hand, is a figment of a paranoid conspiracy theorist who really can't even string coherent thoughts together. I urge you not to find yourself consistent with the latter.

[Skyrad 0]

I'm not referring to the OP but to the court case. The man in question sounds like he'd be no loss to society but if the US Gov is able to place a kill order on an American citizen then that sets a precedent (assuming that its the first of its kind) and that is what I'm referring to. If this man is targeted then why not others also?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'm not referring to the OP but to the court case. The man in question sounds like he'd be no loss to society but if the US Gov is able to place a kill order on an American citizen then that sets a precedent (assuming that its the first of its kind) and that is what I'm referring to. If this man is targeted then why not others also?

Well, I suppose that's part of the inquiry in the lawsuit. Presumably, the targets are those who have been identified as de facto combatants in a terrorist network, operating offshore beyond the reach of conventional law enforcement, making them, by default, targets of pre-emptive military action. The point of the lawsuit is to determine specifically what standards are used (if any) to determine that, and to challenge whether that should be subject to advance judicial review.

Do I think the US govt is going to go beyond that and target journalists or mere political opponents for death, the way some other countries do? Generally no; but the lawsuit draws from the foundational principle that - human nature being what it is - the best way to prevent that from happening - in a democratic republic governed by the rule of law - is by establishing specific guidelines, making those guidelines public and subjecting individual cases to advance judicial scrutiny.

[Skyrad 0]

It wouldn't be the first time that journalists have been seen as fair game. Remember the bombing of the Serb TV station, which was a civilian target. The justification was that it was part of the enemies propaganda mechanism which it was argued made it legitimate target. Indeed GWB considered doing the same to Al J.
Not saying it has happened (though some are) I'm just saying its not such a big step as it initially sounds. Serbia was a war with borders, the current 'conflict' is one without borders.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca