The White House is “Judge, Jury and Executioner” of Both Drone and Cyber-Attacks

[BE Mike]

Terrorism is a point of view. In their minds they are freedom fighters engaged against a dishonorable enemy. Whether or not they're right depends a lot upon who you are and where you live.

Terrorist is an arbitrary term. Certainly it once had a real meaning, but that is long gone. Once upon a time you had to kill civilians with the intent of forcing a political change to be labeled a terrorist. Today all you have to do is rub the right politician the wrong way. Even you may one day be deemed a terrorist by insane government.

I've shot Anwar Al-Awlaki a number of times. I have a picture of him that I printed out and used as a target at the range. We weren't buddies. I do not approve of what he did. None the less, to the best of my knowledge all he did is talk and write. I'm thinking the First Amendment might apply, assuming of course that we actually believe what it says. I've seen nothing to indicate he actually renounced his citizenship. I do not believe that soil he stood on made him any less a citizen. I do not believe you, Obama, or Obama's posse have/had the right to strip him of his citizenship. I believe he should have been brought home, by force if needed, and put on trial.

You mention Osama Bin Laden. Again not a buddy. Still, he wasn't a head of state. He was the head of a criminal organization. He should have been captured, brought here, tried, and fed pork until he died. I approve of the end result, but the method used involved the invasion of a sovereign Nation and the murder of a foreign national. Not a lot of respect for the rule of law there.

Without due process that is recognizable as due process our Constitution really is just a G.D. piece of paper. I don't like that very much. In the end I think this stuff is critically important. Either we all follow the law, or some of us follow the law as we're told and others follow the law as they manipulate it. In the latter case the rule of law is not worthy of an honorable man's respect.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect I must absolutely and profoundly disagree with your arguments on this subject, as presented thus far.

Excuse me, but your exercise in semantics is baloney. Most likely a good percentage of German soldiers who fought us in WWII were not members of the Nazi party, but they were still enemy combatants. These "citizens" have declared war on us. They are the enemy. They support terrorism to rid the world of people that don't agree with their warped version of their religion. Your type of thinking puts this country at a disadvantage in this war. Capturing the leaders of these terrorist organizations is far too dangerous to risk American lives. These drone strikes are a great tool and it sure beats carpet bombing.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What you can't seem to get your head around is that this is war. No, it's not the kind of war that we've had in the past. These citizen terrorists are traitors. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. They are enemy combatants. Under your definition Joseph Goebbels shouldn't have been considered an enemy combatant. You want to put roadblocks in the way of fighting our war on terror. Please don't label me as a terrorist. I don't care what yardstick you use.

1. In the case of treason, we have a constitutional standard for dealing with it.

2. How can you call someone a 'combatant' who isn't even in a country where combat is happening? I certainly don't consider the man any loss to the civilized world, but I am not willing to take on the risks that come with arbitrary summary execution. You apparently live under the fantasy of believing in benevolent government. I do not harbor any such delusion.

3. I am unaware of Herr Goebbels ever being a US citizen.

4. I would like to see the problem of terrorism solved. That does not mean that I am willing to give up expecting the government to operate within constitutional standards to accomplish that. If you like that way of operating, I would recommend relocating to the PRC or DPRK.

5. I did NOT label you, and it is not my yardstick. Your own government labeled most all of us as fitting within its definition of terrorist. I was simply bringing it to your attention. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Janet Napolitano. It wasn't my idea.

 

[BE Mike]

1. In the case of treason, we have a constitutional standard for dealing with it.

2. How can you call someone a 'combatant' who isn't even in a country where combat is happening? I certainly don't consider the man any loss to the civilized world, but I am not willing to take on the risks that come with arbitrary summary execution. You apparently live under the fantasy of believing in benevolent government. I do not harbor any such delusion.

3. I am unaware of Herr Goebbels ever being a US citizen.

4. I would like to see the problem of terrorism solved. That does not mean that I am willing to give up expecting the government to operate within constitutional standards to accomplish that. If you like that way of operating, I would recommend relocating to the PRC or DPRK.

5. I did NOT label you, and it is not my yardstick. Your own government labeled most all of us as fitting within its definition of terrorist. I was simply bringing it to your attention. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Janet Napolitano. It wasn't my idea.

I believe in giving our troops the best tools for taking out terrorists. We need to do all we can to keep the threat at bay. Anyone who thinks that capturing American terrorists and bringing them to trial is the one living in a fantasy world. They are the enemy and should be destroyed, unless they surrender. Maybe we should capture these terrorists and bring them to trial for torture and beheading of captured civilians and our military. Perhaps we should charge them with violations of the rules of war...LUDICROUS! A benevolent government insinuates that somehow we are subservient to it. I consider myself a free citizen. You like to put words in other folk's mouths. I never said that Goebbels was an American. Your insinuating that somehow my thinking makes me less of an American and should relocate is abhorrent. I won't respond to your childish accusations questioning my character or patriotism.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Judge weighing in on the issue.......Judge Napolitano on Obama’s Drone Strike Policy: ‘This Is the Power Claimed by Kings and Tyrants’


Judge Napolitano on Obama’s Drone Strike Policy: ‘This Is the Power Claimed by Kings and Tyrants’ | Fox News Insider

 

[IndyDave1776]

I believe in giving our troops the best tools for taking out terrorists. We need to do all we can to keep the threat at bay. Anyone who thinks that capturing American terrorists and bringing them to trial is the one living in a fantasy world. They are the enemy and should be destroyed, unless they surrender. Maybe we should capture these terrorists and bring them to trial for torture and beheading of captured civilians and our military. Perhaps we should charge them with violations of the rules of war...LUDICROUS! A benevolent government insinuates that somehow we are subservient to it. I consider myself a free citizen. You like to put words in other folk's mouths. I never said that Goebbels was an American. Your insinuating that somehow my thinking makes me less of an American and should relocate is abhorrent. I won't respond to your childish accusations questioning my character or patriotism.

No, you did not claim Goebbels as a US citizen, you simply accused me of applying a standard to him that is reserved for our citizens, so I addressed the apparent implication.

If we can manage a drone strike on a citizen traveling in the only vehicle on a highway in the middle of a desert in a neutral country, at least making an effort to afford due process would be much better than summary execution. No, I do not lament his loss of life, but if he can be an exception, then so can I--don't forget that we both fall withing the government's parameters for terrorists.

I stand by my previous statement. If you consider it right and proper for the government to engage in the summary execution of citizens it considers disloyal with no requirement for evidence supporting that conclusion, no due process, no recourse, no warning, and obviously no appeal given that no matter how many morons believe that Obama is god, he cannot resurrect the dead, then I stand by my assertion that a government that already practices this brand of 'justice' may be a better fit for you.

One last thing--it isn't a matter of putting 'roadblocks' as you called it in the way of the war on terror. The point at issue is that I have a problem with allowing use of unconstitutional force on any citizen no matter how reprehensible by virtue of the fact that if we allow it, we can rest assured that the same will eventually be used on us. But that is for terrorists, not us? Asset forfeiture laws were only for drug 'kingpins' but now anyone caught with a little green in his jeans can be robbed by thugs with badges--and you want to up the ante to summary execution.

 

[rcjohnson64]

they better hope one of those bastards doesn't fly too low over my house!....I will be selling a slightly damaged drone at my next yard sale!!....LMAO!

 

[Denny347]

they better hope one of those bastards doesn't fly too low over my house!....I will be selling a slightly damaged drone at my next yard sale!!....LMAO!

Yeah, 135 mph top speed and stall speed of 60 mph (or so). Good luck with that.

 

[BE Mike]

No, you did not claim Goebbels as a US citizen, you simply accused me of applying a standard to him that is reserved for our citizens, so I addressed the apparent implication.

If we can manage a drone strike on a citizen traveling in the only vehicle on a highway in the middle of a desert in a neutral country, at least making an effort to afford due process would be much better than summary execution. No, I do not lament his loss of life, but if he can be an exception, then so can I--don't forget that we both fall withing the government's parameters for terrorists.

I stand by my previous statement. If you consider it right and proper for the government to engage in the summary execution of citizens it considers disloyal with no requirement for evidence supporting that conclusion, no due process, no recourse, no warning, and obviously no appeal given that no matter how many morons believe that Obama is god, he cannot resurrect the dead, then I stand by my assertion that a government that already practices this brand of 'justice' may be a better fit for you.

One last thing--it isn't a matter of putting 'roadblocks' as you called it in the way of the war on terror. The point at issue is that I have a problem with allowing use of unconstitutional force on any citizen no matter how reprehensible by virtue of the fact that if we allow it, we can rest assured that the same will eventually be used on us. But that is for terrorists, not us? Asset forfeiture laws were only for drug 'kingpins' but now anyone caught with a little green in his jeans can be robbed by thugs with badges--and you want to up the ante to summary execution.

Unless you have a degree in constitutional law, your opinion has no more weight than mine. "Thugs with badges? Think I should move to another country?" Looks like you wake up each and every day mad at the world. I'll pray for you.

 

[Survivalcookie]

]He is killing off evidence that terrorism is alive and well. After all HE killed OBL terrorism is no longer a threat.

 

[T.Lex]

Gotta love the UK Guardian:
DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

On Sunday morning, MSNBC host Chris Hayes devoted a full hour to Obama's assassination program, and before doing so, he delivered an excellent monologue addressing the many progressives who complain any time he critically covers Obama's actions in this area. He cited an amazing post by an Obama supporter who wrote: "I support President Obama's drone attacks. And I admit that I'm a hypocrite. If a republican administration were executing these practices, I'd probably join the chorus to condemn them as unconstitutional, authoritarian or worse".

 

[IndyDave1776]

Unless you have a degree in constitutional law, your opinion has no more weight than mine. "Thugs with badges? Think I should move to another country?" Looks like you wake up each and every day mad at the world. I'll pray for you.

Is that the best you can do? The Constitution was never meant to be esoteric knowledge comprehensible only to the special few. In most regards (with prominent exceptions being cases in which word usage has changed in the intervening years) it is very plain. It does not take a degree in constitutional law to understand that it plainly says that citizens are entitled to a trial by jury with evidence presented and the opportunity to confront one's accusers. There is no way other than indulging in complete fantasy to evade this. You have started with a wrong-headed argument and then descended into a disingenuous ad hominem based on the absence of extra initials after my name. You cannot generate an actual argument because there is none.