grue 1 #1 February 11, 2014 http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/10/politics/terror-suspect-targeting-debate/index.html First they came for the "terrorists"…cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 February 11, 2014 I have no problem with the concept that a person gives up his rights as a citizen when he joins a terrorist organization and especially if it's a terrorist organization operating in a country that is friendly to terrorist organizations. Sorry, but there's just no other way to go about it. The government isn't doing this lightly or there wouldn't even be a "debate." If they do a review and deem him a target, so be it. I hope he's standing next to more bad guys. Always nice to get a twofer.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #3 February 11, 2014 quadeI have no problem with the concept that person gives up his rights as a citizen when he joins a terrorist organization and especially if it's a terrorist organization operating in a country that is friendly to terrorist organizations. Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization?cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 February 11, 2014 grue***I have no problem with the concept that person gives up his rights as a citizen when he joins a terrorist organization and especially if it's a terrorist organization operating in a country that is friendly to terrorist organizations. Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization? Asking to prove negatives is never the right debate tactic. No. That's simply not how it works. The way it DOES work is the government proves to a judicial panel this guy is, in fact, connected to terrorists. With the last guy it was relatively easy since he admitted it on YouTube several times. My guess is this is a similarly blatant case. We'll find out all the grisly details about it later I'm sure as well.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #5 February 11, 2014 quade******I have no problem with the concept that person gives up his rights as a citizen when he joins a terrorist organization and especially if it's a terrorist organization operating in a country that is friendly to terrorist organizations. Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization? Asking to prove negatives is never the right debate tactic. No. That's simply not how it works. The way it DOES work is the government proves to a judicial panel this guy is, in fact, connected to terrorists. With the last guy it was relatively easy since he admitted it on YouTube several times. My guess is this is a similarly blatant case. We'll find out all the grisly details about it later I'm sure as well. You have a lot more faith in our government to do the right thing than I do.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 February 11, 2014 quade*** Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization? Asking to prove negatives is never the right debate tactic. it's absolutely the right question to ask, based on our founding principles of justice. Quote The way it DOES work is the government proves to a judicial panel this guy is, in fact, connected to terrorists. With the last guy it was relatively easy since he admitted it on YouTube several times. My guess is this is a similarly blatant case. We'll find out all the grisly details about it later I'm sure as well. The same way we found out about the NSA? It certainly didn't come from FISA, the rubber stamping judicial panel we already have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #7 February 11, 2014 quade******I have no problem with the concept that person gives up his rights as a citizen when he joins a terrorist organization and especially if it's a terrorist organization operating in a country that is friendly to terrorist organizations. Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization? Asking to prove negatives is never the right debate tactic. No. That's simply not how it works. The way it DOES work is the government proves to a judicial panel this guy is, in fact, connected to terrorists. With the last guy it was relatively easy since he admitted it on YouTube several times. My guess is this is a similarly blatant case. We'll find out all the grisly details about it later I'm sure as well. So you are a proponent of the death penalty? Who knew?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 February 11, 2014 kelpdiver****** Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization? Asking to prove negatives is never the right debate tactic. it's absolutely the right question to ask, based on our founding principles of justice. Nope. Innocent until proven guilty. Try again.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 February 11, 2014 turtlespeedSo you are a proponent of the death penalty? Who knew? You haven't been paying attention. I have -always- spoken in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes. Treason and terrorism against the US is well inside that set for me.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #10 February 11, 2014 quade********* Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization? Asking to prove negatives is never the right debate tactic. it's absolutely the right question to ask, based on our founding principles of justice. Nope. Innocent until proven guilty. Try again. When the burden of proof is as simple as calling someone a "terrorist", the bar's pretty low. Terrorists are the new Jews, frankly.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #11 February 11, 2014 So if Russia sends drones over the US to kill Russian dissidents seeking refuge here, you're cool with that? Goose, gander, etc."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 February 11, 2014 grueWhen the burden of proof is as simple as calling someone a "terrorist", the bar's pretty low. Do you really believe a decision such as this is a casual affair? It's not. It has both Congressional as well as Judicial oversight of the Executive. You might want to look into the procedures. It is not a decision taken lightly. QuoteTerrorists are the new Jews, frankly. Your comparison is disgusting on several levels and woefully wrong.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 February 11, 2014 ryoderSo if Russia sends drones over the US to kill Russian dissidents seeking refuge here, you're cool with that? Goose, gander, etc. Depends on which "dissidents" you're talking about. To my knowledge there are no Russian citizen terrorists taking refuge in the US for which Russia has requested extradition and we've refused. And that's really a big part of this, the cooperation of the "host" country and their willingness to fight actual terrorists, not just some chicks in a rock band with an opposing point of view visiting New York for an appearance on Colbert.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #14 February 11, 2014 quade ***So if Russia sends drones over the US to kill Russian dissidents seeking refuge here, you're cool with that? Goose, gander, etc. Depends on which "dissidents" you're talking about. To my knowledge there are no Russian citizen terrorists taking refuge in the US for which Russia has requested extradition and we've refused. And that's really a big part of this, the cooperation of the "host" country and their willingness to fight actual terrorists, not just some chicks in a rock band with an opposing point of view visiting New York for an appearance on Colbert. See, that's another reason I listen to country. You never can tell about those rock bands. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #15 February 11, 2014 quade It's not. It has both Congressional as well as Judicial oversight of the Executive. You might want to look into the procedures. It is not a decision taken lightly. Our government has shown itself to really not subscribe to the checks and balances idea anymore, and to be willing to rubber stamp pretty much anything. This might be different, but I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Quote ***Terrorists are the new Jews, frankly. Your comparison is disgusting on several levels and woefully wrong. I disagree. I think the fact that they're willing to fear monger, violate Constitutional rights, and kill their own citizens over a label and words absolutely justifies drawing comparisons with what has happened in the past. It's not on the same level, but it started a similar way.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 February 11, 2014 grue****** it's absolutely the right question to ask, based on our founding principles of justice. Nope. Innocent until proven guilty. Try again. When the burden of proof is as simple as calling someone a "terrorist", the bar's pretty low. Indeed, I'm not sure how he thinks this is an example of innocent until proven guilty, or due process. And where is the jury of peers, required for a capital offense case? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 February 11, 2014 kelpdiverIndeed, I'm not sure how he thinks this is an example of innocent until proven guilty, or due process. There is "due process." It's absolutely a process. It's not a normal process by definition, but there is absolutely due process. A person does not get a free pass to be a terrorist simply because he happened to be a citizen at some point. QuoteAnd where is the jury of peers, required for a capital offense case? There simply does not need to be one as defined in the law for a case like this. These are special cases applicable to terrorists. If the judicial panel declares him a terrorist, then a jury of peers simply doesn't apply. What, precisely, would you rather happen? Send troops into a hostile country to capture him risking our guys lives? Just let him go so he can continue to be a terrorist?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 February 11, 2014 quade QuoteAnd where is the jury of peers, required for a capital offense case? There simply does not need to be one as defined in the law for a case like this. These are special cases applicable to terrorists. If the judicial panel declares him a terrorist, then a jury of peers simply doesn't apply. which part of the Constitution are you citing, now? and to go along further with this, it sounds like water boarding and other forms of torture are perfectly acceptable too, just so long as we declare "TERRORIST" at the talk of our lungs in an underground bunker, first. You wouldn't accept this from the last President. But Obama does it, and it's A-OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #19 February 11, 2014 kelpdiverYou wouldn't accept this from the last President. But Obama does it, and it's A-OK. Actually, this is something I -did- support from GWB. That's where this whole thing comes from in the first place. " Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists." It all began about a week after September 11. Again, I have NO issues with killing terrorists. I DO have issues with invading countries. Can you see the difference? It is more humane to target and kill terrorists than to cause widespread war. Hell, I was for (still am in fact) for the repeal of EO12333. I have no issues whatsoever with assassination. I think it's a useful tool we've taken off the table, but (as long as we were going to do it anyway) it sure would have been cheaper in terms of blood and treasure to specifically take out Saddam with a small force than have to invade a whole country to do effectively the same thing. We do not need to invade Yemen or wherever the F this guy or the next one is hiding out and threatening us when we have the capabilities to simply stop him. If that stop means kill, so be it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 February 11, 2014 Let's go more pointed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki I see no trial described here. Just that Obama put in on the list and the NSC (his own people) said, ok. "On April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the killing of al-Awlaki.[34] The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.[34] Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[34] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.[34] The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.[34] In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.[34] People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.[204] Nevertheless, the authorization was controversial." further down: "On August 30, 2010, the groups filed a "targeted killing" lawsuit, naming President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as defendants.[231][232] They sought an injunction preventing the targeted killing of al-Awlaki, and also sought to require the government to disclose the standards under which U.S. citizens may be "targeted for death". Judge John D. Bates dismissed the lawsuit in an 83-page ruling, holding that the father did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, and that his claims were judicially unreviewable under the political question doctrine inasmuch as he was questioning a decision that the U.S. Constitution committed to the political branches." so....still looking for that judicial process you spoke of, Quade. When his father, the ACLU, and others attempted to contest the decision in the only avenue available to them, they were shut down for lack of standing. And a month later he was dead. Is this a guy that we're likely to miss, or feel got short changed by the lack of process? Probably not. But our Constitution says that all citizens have rights, even the shitheads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 February 11, 2014 I didn't say it was a trial. I said it was a procedure and it is. Since you opened the GWB v Obama door. Wiki v Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Use_by_the_United_States_Government QuoteFacing the possibility of defeat in the 2012 Presidential election the Obama Administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures.[60] The work to codify U.S. drone policy began in summer 2011. "There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands," said one unnamed U.S official. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Obama did not want to leave an "amorphous" program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mitt Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.[60] "One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making," Obama said and added that "creating a legal structure, processes, with oversight checks on how we use unmanned weapons, is going to be a challenge for me and my successors for some time to come."[60] U.S. President Obama also expressed wariness of the powerful temptation drones pose to policy makers. "There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems," he said.[60] The fact is Obama has codified the procedure and made it more difficult and given it more oversight since the al-Awlaki case.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #22 February 11, 2014 grue***I have no problem with the concept that person gives up his rights as a citizen when he joins a terrorist organization and especially if it's a terrorist organization operating in a country that is friendly to terrorist organizations. Can you prove you aren't in a terrorist organization? At least you asked him and gave him the right to reply.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #23 February 11, 2014 QuoteU.S. debating targeted killing of American terror suspect overseas The main problem I have with this is the word 'suspect'. If you are a suspect then you haven't been found guilty of anything. Extra judicial killings are wrong. Also its stupid to lump everyone fighting overseas into a big homogenous AQ grouping. There are Americans fighting in Syria, some will have AQ aspirations and others just want to go and fight against a dictator who's killing his own people and have no aim of bringing home what they learnt to use on US soil. These British 'Jihadists' are a point in case. http://news.sky.com/story/1183820/syria-sky-news-gains-access-to-uk-jihadists Better to keep them under observation and gather more information on their intent than jump to conclusions.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #24 February 11, 2014 I like it! No legislative branch. No judicial branch. No objective checks and balances. Just one man making the decision to kill a US Citizen because he is suspected of being involved. That's America! Keep in mind that there is a huge debate over what a terrorist is. Some of the more noteworthy terrorists in history include Washington, Jefferson, Madison... I have a real issue with the Executive Branch making and executing these decisions without Judicial review. The potential for abuse is enormous.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 February 11, 2014 quadeI didn't say it was a trial. I said it was a procedure and it is. Your words: "The way it DOES work is the government proves to a judicial panel this guy is, in fact, connected to terrorists." Still waiting for you to identify this judicial panel. The NSC doesn't come remotely close. Quote The fact is Obama has codified the procedure and made it more difficult and given it more oversight since the al-Awlaki case. The fact is that your citation reads: "The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mitt Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace," We know how well things work when the Obama administration rushes projects, and lord knows something as important as how to kill Americans without a trial is something that should be rushed for election concerns. In any event, it's been 15 months since the election and it STILL DOESN'T EXIST. I don't know why you frequently like to engage me by playing stupid as a debate tactic. It's called TROLLING, which should be beneath a moderator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
