Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

The bold would still be plainly unconstitutional. Having concrete plans is totally insufficient under the due process clause to dispense with trial and due process. Due process may be dispensed with only if there is an imminent threat to the public that can be avoided only by the use of force.

There you go then, I am apparently a hawk LOL

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

That isn't even a crime, much less a threat. In fact, the way you've phrased it it's protected First Amendment activity. I'll assume by your vagueness that you have no idea what he was doing.


.

1st amendment doesnt protect people who work with designated terrorist group and are/have actively attempting to murder.

Yemen is not a war zone. Nor is Pakistan. Nor even Afghanistan. In fact, the US is not at war right now at all, and hasn't been for a decade.

lol, this bubble needs to be popped

 

[AlimNassor]

Yeah, but neither of those scenarios constitute war to me. A war is not occurring every time a country takes action against a perceived threat merely by virtue of that fact. Terrorism is a criminal act. (It's defined that way by our own domestic laws.) If there are people who we believe are orchestrating terrorism against the domestic US public, then they are people we believe are engaged in criminal acts. And the response to that ought not be murder. It should be arrest upon probable cause and trial in accordance with due process (working through international channels as appropriate).

The worst part is that I suspect almost none of the targeted killings are even internally justified on the ground that the victims are actively engaged in plotting terrorist activities against the domestic US public. As far as I can tell, the targeted killing program is just a projection of American imperial power. It seems to me that the targets of our assassination program are merely the political opponents of our foreign policy objectives. Have you ever heard of any targeted killings occurring against somebody who was even alleged to have been actively plotting an act of terrorism against the domestic US public?

Maybe if he were on US soil or captured, but, he wasn't. Should we stop what were doing and arrest every america that joins the taliban and put them into trial? Why not just never shoot any enemies and give all our soldiers n0n-lethal weapons instead?

 

[The Technomancer]

lol, this bubble needs to be popped

No, that's actually where I agree fully with him. We have not formally declared war in those areas. This is completely aside from my feelings about war and armed conflict in general. Now if we were at war with Pakistan than I would be alright with the strikes in that context. What I mean by that is that I probably wouldn't be alright with the war but I'd see the strikes as part of the package, not some separate entity that was itself "more bad" than the war

Much of the problem, of course, is that the "enemy" in this case is not an organized state.

So, to clarify my convoluted position on this: I'm not too upset that an "American citizen" was killed in contrast to all the other people being killed. As others have said, he was very explicitly involved in work to take up arms against "his" country. If we're already saying its alright to kill people overseas because they might be a threat to us, he's fair game. I'm upset because I don't necessarily agree that we should be killing people overseas just because they represent a possible threat in the first place. There's nothing special about this that makes me any more upset then the entire military engagement in the middle east already does.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

You can fly a remote control plane over a guys head but, you can't "capture" them?
haha, you can't just shoot them with a net instead of a bullet? or just hit them with a tranquilizer dart or something?

 

[Wazzim]

Being an American citizen grants you no special protection.

Lol okay then. I'm happy my government thinks differently about it's citizens.

 

[RDreamer]

Being an American citizen grants you no special protection.

lol, what?

I would hope being an American citizen would grant you special protection from the American government. It's called the Constitution.

 

[el retorno]

No, that's actually where I agree fully with him. We have not formally declared war in those areas. This is completely aside from my feelings about war and armed conflict in general. Now if we were at war with Pakistan than I would be alright with the strikes in that context. What I mean by that is that I probably wouldn't be alright with the war but I'd see the strikes as part of the package, not some separate entity that was itself "more bad" than the war

Much of the problem, of course, is that the "enemy" in this case is not an organized state.

So, to clarify my convoluted position on this: I'm not too upset that an "American citizen" was killed in contrast to all the other people being killed. As others have said, he was very explicitly involved in work to take up arms against "his" country. If we're already saying its alright to kill people overseas because they might be a threat to us, he's fair game. I'm upset because I don't necessarily agree that we should be killing people overseas just because they represent a possible threat in the first place. There's nothing special about this that makes me any more upset then the entire military engagement in the middle east already does.

Yes we have formally authorized force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

(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.

 

[empty vessel]

1st amendment doesnt protect people who work with designated terrorist group and are/have actively attempting to murder.

(1) That's not true at all: http://www.armyofgod.com/EricRudolphHomepage.html

(2) This is just vague posturing. Nobody in this thread can even identify any acts al-Awlaki was even alleged to have been committing at the time he was murdered that would justify it. It's a pretty stark example of exactly why due process is important. So far, the position that has been asserted against mine amounts to, "the government said he was a bad guy." It's pathetic, truly.

Maybe if he were on US soil or captured, but, he wasn't. Should we stop what were doing and arrest every america that joins the taliban and put them into trial?

Why are we using words that have no meaning anymore? The Taliban was a political faction that controlled the Afghanistan government in 2001. It is not possible to "join the Taliban." Nor, even if that were possible, does describing something in these terms convey any meaningful information that would ever allow anybody to assess in any meaningful way what, if anything, should be done about it. For my part, I have no problem with Americans "joining the Taliban" and have no desire to kill or even arrest them.

Why not just never shoot any enemies and give all our soldiers n0n-lethal weapons instead?

And by "enemy" you mean anybody who the government says is a "bad guy," yes? Are we children here?

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

No, that's actually where I agree fully with him. We have not formally declared war in those areas. This is completely aside from my feelings about war and armed conflict in general. Now if we were at war with Pakistan than I would be alright with the strikes in that context. What I mean by that is that I probably wouldn't be alright with the war but I'd see the strikes as part of the package, not some separate entity that was itself "more bad" than the war

Much of the problem, of course, is that the "enemy" in this case is not an organized state.

i meant they are Warzones whether we declared it or not.

Northern Pakistan have been a warzone for a while now, Pakistan(not us) declared war on the Lashkar-e-Islam group, since the last decade.

Afghanistan have been a warzone almost non-stop. The Taliban pushing the northern alliance out of Kabul didnt really end anything.

the conflicts in South Asia are like one bowl of soup, different ingredient, but still one dish

Its not the 1950s anymore, "War has changed" whether we like it or not, we need to reshape our laws and how we go about facing conflict. To be clear I do have my concerns with the program, but I think people(specially Liberals) have been asking the wrong questions and chasing the wrong issue.

 

[empty vessel]

i meant they are Warzones whether we declared it or not.

Northern Pakistan have been a warzone for a while now, Pakistan(not us) declared war on the Lashkar-e-Islam group, since the last decade.

Afghanistan have been a warzone almost non-stop. The Taliban pushing the northern alliance out of Kabul didnt really end anything.

the conflicts in South Asia are like one bowl of soup, different ingredient, but still one dish

Its not the 1950s anymore, "War has changed" whether we like it or not, we need to reshape our laws and how we go about facing conflict. To be clear I do have my concerns with the program, but I think people(specially Liberals) have been asking the wrong questions and chasing the wrong issue.

Detroit is a warzone by this standard. Ridiculous.

 

[Alucrid]

You can fly a remote control plane over a guys head but, you can't "capture" them?
haha, you can't just shoot them with a net instead of a bullet? or just hit them with a tranquilizer dart or something?

I think everyone in this thread can agree that shooting a missle from a remote control drone in the sky is far easier than shooting them with a 'net' or a 'tranqilizer dart' or something to capture them.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

(1) That's not true at all: http://www.armyofgod.com/EricRudolphHomepage.html

(2) This is just vague posturing. Nobody in this thread can even identify any acts al-Awlaki was even alleged to have been committing at the time he was murdered that would justify it. It's a pretty stark example of exactly why due process is important. So far, the position that has been asserted against mine amounts to, "the government said he was a bad guy." It's pathetic, truly.

No, He HIMSELF said he's a "bad guy", he HIMSELF released videos, not only encouraging other to kill Americans, but made clear that he will aid. He took credit for attempts.

al-Awlaki was not a fuckin secret, he wasnt put on the most wanted list because he talked shit about Americans and US gov't, but because he took the extra step of aiding in the murder of Americans.

 

[slider]

The struggle between intelligence and evidence. Heh.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'm just going to repost something from late 2011...

What should be getting asked from a legal standpoint is whether or not the war powers act is constitutional, and, if so, what, if any, limits on military force apply when authorized under the war powers act versus a declaration of war (the war powers act is essentially a way for congress to authorize military action without calling it a war).

Until the war powers act is tested constitutionally, it is valid law, meaning at the time of Anwar al-Aulaqi's killing, or that of any American citizen associated with the groups which perpetrated or aided those who perpetrated 9/11, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which authorizes the use of military force against al qaeda in accordance with the War Powers Act, permitted such a killing, due to al-awlaki's association with al qaeda.

now, if the war powers act was struck down, say, tomorrow, that doesn't mean you can impeach obama over what he did while it was in place. I think that would only work if you could show they were deliberately trying to pull a fast one on the courts, passing something that they legimitately knew was unconstitutional but would not be constitutionally tested until after actions had occurred using it as justification. Of course the war powers act is decades old, and impeachment is done by the same body which passes the laws, rather than the courts.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Detroit is a warzone by this standard. Ridiculous.

Pakistan declared war

try again

 

[slider]

Pakistan declared war

try again

Surely that's an internal conflict though, right?

I'm sure, even if it's not written down anywhere or in any public statement, you could make a pretty convincing argument that India "is at war" with LeT.

 

[el retorno]

That isn't even a crime, much less a threat. In fact, the way you've phrased it it's protected First Amendment activity. I'll assume by your vagueness that you have no idea what he was doing.

Actively conspiring against the US in a war zone is a crime

The very same due process principles apply. And it would be plainly unconstitutional for a cop to have shot somebody under these circumstances.

You still view the due process clause as unlimited. The supreme court doesn',t there is a balancing test. The administration views protecting the American people from terrorist attacks as more important than the private individual who as left his country and is working against his country with our enemy's right to life. I tend to agree with this assessment. In hamdi the supreme court even conceded to the fact that US citizens life may be taken and that the "due process analysis need not blink that that reality"

It also says being a citzen doesn't give you special protection in war

There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U.S., at 20. We held that “[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of … the law of war.” Id., at 37—38.

Yemen is not a war zone. Nor is Pakistan. Nor even Afghanistan. In fact, the US is not at war right now at all, and hasn't been for a decade.

Yes we are, we are at war under the authorization for use of military force

It's a deprivation of life without due process. You couldn't find a more pristine example of an activity diametrically opposed to the plain text of the Fifth Amendment:

(1) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime by a grand jury.

(2) "Nor shall any person ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law..." Al-Awlaki was deprived of life without due process of law.

See the supreme court. It disagrees with you.

I presume it's because you don't care if the government acts lawlessly. I think that makes you a terrible citizen. The rule of law is fundamental to civilized society.

I don't see the government acting lawlessly.

I'm assuming you also believe that the government is permitted to kill suspected KKK members on sight? Suspected right-wing militia members (like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph)? Suspected gang members, too? Suspected anti-abortion activists? Suspected mob players? People who are suspected of "working with" any of these folks?

I genuinely think you should feel embarrassed for having typed all of this out.

I don't think the American government has even the right to kill al-awlaki on sight just because. There is a 3 step requirement. I don't think any of those other groups would pass that. Also there has been congressional approval for treating al-awlaki as an enemy of war. The others are treated under criminal law. And if any were an imminent threat to the US and couldn't be captured I do support the US doing what it has to do to protect its citizens

By your logic it almost seems you couldn't have killed any Confederate soldiers in the civil war because they were denied their constitutional.

Detroit is a warzone by this standard. Ridiculous.

Do you keep ignoring the AUMF? Congress as authorized the president to go to war against any terrorist

 

[Dude Abides]

lol, what?

I would hope being an American citizen would grant you special protection from the American government. It's called the Constitution.

It doesn't, though. The applicable clauses of the constitution refer to "persons" rather than "citizens."

 

[YoungHav]

Why are people blindly OK with this? "They work w/Taliban, they haz no rights!" uhhh yes they should. Tim McVeigh went to trial, Jared Lautner got a trial, the Times Square car bomber went to trial, underwear bomber went to trial, James Holmes is in legal proceedings, Adam Lanza would have had a trial. They all committed acts of terror against US Citizens, why not just drone strike their asses right?

lolz@ senior al queda officials that happen to be american.

Its a "Oh shit, we killed accidentally killed an American civilian...lets try to cover it up!" clause.

Also known as the Dave Chapelle 'Sprinkle some crack on em' skit.

hahahaha yup.

 

[el retorno]

Why are people blindly OK with this? "They work w/Taliban, they haz no rights!" uhhh yes they should. Tim McVeigh went to trial, Jared Lautner got a trial, the Times Square car bomber went to trial, underwear bomber went to trial, James Holmes is in legal proceedings, Adam Lanza would have had a trial. They all committed acts of terror against US Citizens, why not just drone strike their asses right?

Do you not notice a few difference between the people described in this memo and your examples?

 

[The Technomancer]

Why are people blindly OK with this? "They work w/Taliban, they haz no rights!" uhhh yes they should. Tim McVeigh went to trial, Jared Lautner got a trial, the Times Square car bomber went to trial, underwear bomber went to trial, James Holmes is in legal proceedings, Adam Lanza would have had a trial. They all committed acts of terror against US Citizens, why not just drone strike their asses right?

And how do you propose they would arrest him?

 

[way more]

Why are people blindly OK with this? "They work w/Taliban, they haz no rights!" uhhh yes they should. Tim McVeigh went to trial, Jared Lautner got a trial, the Times Square car bomber went to trial, underwear bomber went to trial, James Holmes is in legal proceedings, Adam Lanza would have had a trial. They all committed acts of terror against US Citizens, why not just drone strike their asses right?

Why didn't they just assassinate the underwear bomber? I mean, because it's apparently so easy to get justification to do so. Maybe it's because he was in the US and we could easily capture him. He wasn't in the middle of of some god forsaken mountain region.

 

[timetokill]

This shit is absolutely appalling and should not be accepted in any form by the US populace, but instead of talking about executive policy to assassinate anybody they damn well please without due process, I guess people would rather talk about one guy's racist tweets.

Actively conspiring against the US in a war zone is a crime

Right, and based on the Obama/Bush interpretation of "war zone," the entire planet is a battlefield. Fuck that shit.

You still view the due process clause as unlimited. The supreme court doesn',t there is a balancing test. The administration views protecting the American people from terrorist attacks as more important than the private individual who as left his country and is working against his country with our enemy's right to life. I tend to agree with this assessment.

In hamdi the supreme court even conceded to the fact that US citizens life may be taken and that the "due process analysis need not blink that that reality"

It's interesting that hamdi is being cited as a justification when the Bush administration lost that case, didn't they? And that whole case came about because he was actually still alive to file the case, right?

I don't see the government acting lawlessly.

Well they make their own rules as they go so I guess they can't ever really act lawlessly under that kind of thinking, can they?

 

[numble]

In hamdi the supreme court even conceded to the fact that US citizens life may be taken and that the "due process analysis need not blink that that reality"

Hamdi does not say that at all. They were talking about detentions:

As discussed above, supra, at 10, the law of war and the realities of combat may render such detentions both necessary and appropriate, and our due process analysis need not blink at those realities.

It also says being a citzen doesn't give you special protection in war

In fact, your entire analysis of Hamdi is wrong. It does give US citizens more process.

We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

...

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.

...

Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html

 

[timetokill]

Gotta say, the lack of discussion here and even in PoliGAF is seriously disheartening. And the title change was also in poor taste, as it is clearly intended to diminish a serious issue and stifle discussion of this topic.

Poor form all around.

 

[empty vessel]

Gotta say, the lack of discussion here and even in PoliGAF is seriously disheartening. And the title change was also in poor taste, as it is clearly intended to diminish a serious issue and stifle discussion of this topic.

Poor form all around.

I agree. I'll post a bit more later, but regarding the title change, it is indeed incorrect now (I don't even remember what it was before, so I'm not commenting on that). Without a trial, the factual assertions are mere allegations. So at best it should read, "Justice Department Memo on Drone Striking American Citizens who the President Alleges are al-Qaeda Leaders." An even more factually accurate title would read, "Justice Department Stretches the Word 'Imminence' Beyond all Sensible Meaning in Attempt to Legally Justify Assassinations of American Citizens Ordered by the President."

 

[timetokill]

I agree. I'll post a bit more later, but regarding the title change, it is indeed incorrect now (I don't even remember what it was before, so I'm not commenting on that). Without a trial, the factual assertions are mere allegations. So at best it should read, "Justice Department Memo on Drone Striking American Citizens who the President Alleges are al-Qaeda Leaders." An even more factually accurate title would read, "Justice Department Stretches the Word 'Imminence' Beyond all Sensible Meaning in Attempt to Legally Justify Assassinations of American Citizens Ordered by the President."

I'm looking forward to (more of) your thoughts on this EV.

I think "stretch" is the key word in all of this. Stretching the word "imminence," stretching the concept of "war zone," stretching the word "enemy", "danger", "lawfulness", and so on.

 

[Angry Fork]

Would you guys be okay with this, if Bush admin had announced this? Or would there be more moral outrage...

The Gitmo rage/drone silence hypocrisy really frustrates me to no end, among other justifications and blind eyes. I can't tolerate centrist liberals anymore, huffpost types who don't give a shit about anything except gay marriage and gun control. Anything that makes Rush Limbaugh look bad as if that's the final goal.

 

[el retorno]

Hamdi does not say that at all. They were talking about detentions:



In fact, your entire analysis of Hamdi is wrong. It does give US citizens more process.




http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html

Hamdi specifically only refers to due process on the challenge of continued detention not his initial one. They captured him, once that's done, they have to give him due process. Not that due process is required for enemy combatants.

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U. S., at 20. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war." Id., at 37-38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. See id., at 30-31. See also Lieber Code, ¶ ;153, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Gen. Order No. 100 (1863), reprinted in 2 Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 273 (contemplating, in code binding the Union Army during the Civil War, that "captured rebels" would be treated "as prisoners of war"). Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States," Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

They are subject to the laws of war and are military targets. If they are captured they get due process. As the memo states. The difference here is that capture is unfeasible.

The only problem I have with the memo is that it doesn't specify who makes decisions. I'd prefer a council of some sort. Thought I think the constitution clearly gives the president final decision on war decisions besides the initial declaration and authorization.

Right, and based on the Obama/Bush interpretation of "war zone," the entire planet is a battlefield. Fuck that shit.

No, according to an act of congress.

It's interesting that hamdi is being cited as a justification when the Bush administration lost that case, didn't they? And that whole case came about because he was actually still alive to file the case, right?

I'm selecting quotes from the supreme court to illustrate their thought process on how it might apply it to future rulings not in regard to what it ruled in that case. There was also no majority ruling in that case.

The Gitmo rage/drone silence hypocrisy really frustrates me to no end, among other justifications and blind eyes. I can't tolerate centrist liberals anymore, huffpost types who don't give a shit about anything except gay marriage and gun control. Anything that makes Rush Limbaugh look bad as if that's the final goal.

So purity or the highway?

 

[numble]

Hamdi specifically only refers to due process on the challenge of continued detention not his initial one. They captured him, once that's done, they have to give him due process. Not that due process is required for enemy combatants.

Hamdi does not say that citizens do not get special protections and does not say that citizens' lives may be taken without due process. Please explain where it says this:

In hamdi the supreme court even conceded to the fact that US citizens life may be taken and that the "due process analysis need not blink that that reality"

 

[CHEEZMO™]

So purity or the highway?

I kinda agree with him. The middle of the road handwringing that seems to define modern liberals (in the American sense) means they aren't as (actually) progressive as they would like to think, nor as helpful. Many liberals often feel like they're strongly principled or some shit, yet let so much slide out of the sake of convenience or not wanting to rock the boat or not wanting to look radical.


Or to put it another way

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

 

[Rentahamster]

I could have sworn the thread title was different the last time I read this thread.

*reads the rest of thread*

Oh, you!

That the targeted people are, in fact, AQ leaders, isn't as cut and dry as the administration might claim it is. Emphasis on "claim".


Gee I remember mentioning this kinda thing in the election threads. Deified Data knows what's up.

 

[el retorno]

I kinda agree with him. The middle of the road handwringing that seems to define modern liberals (in the American sense) means they aren't as (actually) progressive as they would like to think, nor as helpful. Many liberals often feel like they're strongly principled or some shit, yet let so much slide out of the sake of convenience or not wanting to rock the boat or not wanting to look radical.


Or to put it another way

Mao really?

What up with this true liberal crap? Some people disagree with certain stances. I don't want revolution, I want reform.

And sorry I don't tie my political identity to your "liberal" definition.

 

[el retorno]

Hamdi does not say that citizens do not get special protections and does not say that citizens' lives may be taken without due process. Please explain where it says this:

Read my quoted selection. I did take a quote from a different portion of the case with the "need not blink" though.

My quote though states that citizens can be enemies of war and deprived of live just the same as any other member of a force that's at war with the US.

We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war."

A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States," Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

and that they be treated as such with no distinction

 

[curlyfriski]

Mao really?

What up with this true liberal crap? Some people disagree with certain stances. I don't want revolution, I want reform.

And sorry I don't tie my political identity to your "liberal" definition.

It's not about being a "pure liberal," it's about complaining about Bush's record on civil liberties and then not giving a shit when Obama does things that are even worse. That's called a hypocrite.

 

[el retorno]

It's not about being a "pure liberal," it's about complaining about Bush's record on civil liberties and then not giving a shit when Obama does things that are even worse. That's called a hypocrite.

I fault Obama for the wiretaps and other civil liberties (detention forever) violations but I don't think Obama or Bush are at fault for this. I think it legal and within the president's authority. And its not like Obama hasn't changed and improved things, ending torture, trying to close gitmo, etc.

This isn't my most pressing issue though and I never hit bush that hard for the things obama has continued.

 

[curlyfriski]

I fault Obama for the wiretaps and other civil liberties (detention forever) violations but I don't think Obama or Bush are at fault for this. I think it legal and within the president's authority.

Bush didn't carry out any targeted killings on American citizens. That's entirely Obama's thing. And to top it off, he's refused to release even the legal memorandum that justifies the executive branch assuming this authority.

 

[el retorno]

Bush didn't carry out any targeted killings on American citizens. That's entirely Obama's thing.

Ok. I don't think its wrong though so why should I hit Obama for doing something I think he's authorized to do?

The whole push back on this seems to be on some slippery slope hypothetical

 

[numble]

Read my quoted selection. I did take a quote from a different portion of the case with the "need not blink" though.

My quote though states that citizens can be enemies of war and deprived of live just the same as any other member of a force that's at war with the US.

and that they be treated as such with no distinction

Did you read Ex Parte Quirin, which you are quoting? I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion when it was another case about giving enemy belligerents the access to a tribunal.

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations, and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants.Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but, in addition, they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

 

[Dude Abides]

This memo isn't an objective legal analysis but an obvious attempt to justify a policy the administration has decided on for either political reasons or the natural tendency of executives to take an expansive view of executive authority. It's pretty funny that it cites an address justifying Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia as authority (page 4). I wonder what Obama had to say about the secret bombing of Cambodia when he was in college and law school. Holder also saying he doesn't know what's in the memo, even though it's from his Department and it's only 16 pages.

Surprisingly and refreshingly, Rachel Maddow and even partisan hack Ed Schultz are calling the Obama admin out on this.

 

[el retorno]

Did you read Ex Parte Quirin, which you are quoting? I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion when it was a case another case about giving enemy belligerents the access to a tribunal.

Because I read the phrase "subject to the laws of war" to mean that they are treated like any other member of the enemy force. Meaning they can be targeted in killed if they are at war with the US.

Youre right the quotes here specifically to tribunals but the principle IMO is the same and would be held as much. Taking up arms against your country allows the government to target you.

Listen I think there are a lot of questions about this policy that still need to be answered. Senator wyden's letter is full of them and I'd like to the administration to answer them. But they mainly are a problem with process and who decides not the overall principle that these people should be treated like all other enemies.

 

[Kad5]

Bush didn't carry out any targeted killings on American citizens. That's entirely Obama's thing. And to top it off, he's refused to release even the legal memorandum that justifies the executive branch assuming this authority.

I've always wondered why GAF has such a hard on for Obama at times. I'm sure he's a great person to hang out with (I mean hey even Bush seems like a charismatic fellow) but Obama has made extremely questionable decisions and most of gaf just kind of turns their noses because he's not a Republican.

 

[el retorno]

I've always wondered why GAF has such a hard on for Obama at times. I'm sure he's a great person to hang out with (I mean hey even Bush seems like a charismatic fellow) but Obama has made extremely questionable decisions and gaf just kind of turns their noses because he's not a Republican.

I don't see this happening. Some like me defend him (though I'd do the same for republicans) a lot bash him.

Gaf isn't a hivemind with one opinion (though I'm guilty of this as well)

 

[numble]

Because I read the phrase "subject to the laws of war" to mean that they are treated like any other member of the enemy force. Meaning they can be targeted in killed if they are at war with the US.

Youre right the quotes here specifically to tribunals but the principle IMO is the same and would be held as much. Taking up arms against your country allows the government to target you.

Listen I think there are a lot of questions about this policy that still need to be answered. Senator wyden's letter is full of them and I'd like to the administration to answer them. But they mainly are a problem with process and who decides not the overall principle that these people should be treated like all other enemies.

Why don't you read it in the context of the case you're actually quoting?

The Quirin case says that taking up arms allows the government to try you before a military commission. Hamdi basically says the same thing.

How does that somehow mean it is okay for the government to kill you?

 

[el retorno]

Why don't you read it in the context of the case you're actually quoting?

The Quirin case says that taking up arms allows the government to try you before a military commission. Hamdi basically says the same thing.

How does that somehow mean it is okay for the government to kill you?

Because it upholds the principle that these people are the same as those we're fighting. Them having citizenship doesn't grant them distinction. They are the same as every AQ solider

Lots of principles and doctrines are taken out of context and applied to different cases. The balancing principle for due process was taken from a tax cause I believe.

 

[PBalfredo]

While I understand how people are worried about this policy, the that remain is, honestly, what is the alternative?

 

[curlyfriski]

While I understand how people are worried about this policy, the that remain is, honestly, what is the alternative?

To do the same thing we've always done: not assassinate American citizens.

 

[Kad5]

I don't see this happening. Some like me defend him (though I'd do the same for republicans) a lot bash him.

Gaf isn't a hivemind with one opinion (though I'm guilty of this as well)

Eh ok fair enough. You're right. But you don't think the majority of GAF is maybe a little biased towards Obama? I'm sure the majority of people who support Obama are anti-war but Obama seems to be the opposite of that.

 

[curlyfriski]

Eh ok fair enough. You're right. But you don't think the majority of GAF is maybe a little biased towards Obama? I'm sure the majority of people who support Obama are anti-war but Obama seems to be the opposite of that.

It's the same principle as console fanboys.