Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 100
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,887
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    I made one of those once.
    I'm embarassed to admit why I made the mistake. I can't keep those arabic names straight. I thought you guys were talking about taking out the head of Afghanistan that we basically appointed.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475724

    Default

    More on the judge's decision. Notice where it states "the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:" - If those questions offer insight to what the courts would want, the evidence would be abundantly against Awlaki.

    Since late 2009, al-Awlaki "has taken on an increasingly operational role in AQAP," said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in a statement filed in the court case in August. Awlaki, Clapper said, has recruited terrorists and planned and facilitated attacks in the United States and abroad. IPT News has reported many of Anwar al-Awlaki's terrorist connections, linking him to the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bomb plot, and the failed Times Square attack. "He has involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism—fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents," the U.S. government explained in designating him.

    As important as the issues presented in this case are, Bates' opinion suggests he is unwilling to expand judicial access to an individual who has expressed no such interest. "Whatever the reason for Anwar al-Awlaki's failure to seek legal redress for his alleged inclusion on the CIA and JSOC 'kill lists' – a mistrust of or disdain for the American judicial system, a desire to become a martyr, or a mere lack of interest in pursuing a case thousands of miles away from his current location," the court refused to expand access to al-Awlaki.

    In addition to dismissing on grounds that Nasser al-Awlaki lacked standing to bring the suit, the court explained that the case was ultimately outside of the purview of federal courts. In a major victory for the executive branch's role in setting counter-terrorism policy, the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:

    the precise nature and extent of Anwar al-Awlaki's affiliation with AQAP;

    whether AQAP and al-Qaida are so closely linked that the defendants' targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen would come within the United States' current armed conflict with al Qaida;

    whether (assuming plaintiff's proffered legal standard applies) Anwar al-Awlaki's alleged terrorist activity renders him a 'concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety."

    These considerations, the court acknowledged, are simply not within the purview of federal courts. "It is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." Although the procedures remain classified, a Pentagon document titled "Joint Targeting Cycle and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology," shed some light on the procedures for targeted identified terrorists.

    Clearly, Bates expressed discomfort with the decision. "This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicial unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120...laki-suit.html
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind Song View Post
    How is it we think we have the right to "take out" other countries duly elected heads of state?
    It's not so much a right as it is a power.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Elmhurst, NY
    Posts
    179
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    More on the judge's decision. Notice where it states "the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:" - If those questions offer insight to what the courts would want, the evidence would be abundantly against Awlaki.



    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120...laki-suit.html
    Agreed, the arguments are overwhelmingly compelling, and would have supported the action, had they been brought to light at the time.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    For some reason, reading you guys making excuses for the Gov't to assassinate Americans (or torture, or jail without trials or Spy without warrants) reminds me of this cartoon.


    <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LyPFQKpRnd0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage">< param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LyPFQKpRnd0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

    but makes sense of it any way you want , I'm not on the same planet as many of you. carry on.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475724

    Default

    The fact that this discussion reminds you of cartoons is very telling, and can explain a few things.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    I guess I can agree with this. But rather than just saying we killed a terrorist, MANY are declaring Awlaki an assassination, unlike other killings in the exact same department, to somehow "strengthen" their argument - like "Oh no, the US is assassinating it's own citizens!". Nope, we simply took out a stinking terrorist hell bent on killing Americans and has already been a leader of Al Qaeda orchestrating attacks.
    yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

    My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

    My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.
    I can agree with all you're saying.

    BUT, I still will add, that MANY other terrorists fall into the almost identical category. And I find it odd that none of them were ever discussed as assassinations.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

    My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.
    I wouldn't say it's wrong...problematic maybe, but not wrong. I think taking him out of a position he can do harm to America is absolutely right!

    Fact is he acted lawfully; if he had broke any treaties or other relevant law he could be impeached by congress-- that's the check!

    As for balance, The CIC is responsible for administering to foreign threats for good reason, because if you needed some committee to approve every military action the military would be rendered expediant as Congress.


    something is usually considered tobe good if it performs it's function well-- the military/ CIA did what they are entrusted to do IMO. Gather information on, subvert and eliminate threats to national security--they did, successfully!

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    I wouldn't say it's wrong...problematic maybe, but not wrong. I think taking him out of a position he can do harm to America is absolutely right!

    Fact is he acted lawfully; if he had broke any treaties or other relevant law he could be impeached by congress-- that's the check!

    As for balance, The CIC is responsible for administering to foreign threats for good reason, because if you needed some committee to approve every military action the military would be rendered expediant as Congress.


    something is usually considered tobe good if it performs it's function well-- the military/ CIA did what they are entrusted to do IMO. Gather information on, subvert and eliminate threats to national security--they did, successfully!
    Except that congress is already involved in this, and this is a matter of evidentiary support, which falls within the Judiciary. An American terrorist constitutes a domestic threat, not a foreign one. I'm not talking about getting committee approval, but having the Judiciary looking over the evidence used to determine the need to take him out in the action is not undue, since it would work the same as when SWAT has one of their snipers take someone out, having it examined by Internal Affairs to be certain whether it was a lawful shooting, and taking appropriate action.

    As to Jim's point about terminology: Well, yeah, because like I said, we use assassin as a pejorative. It's used to make it seem illicit automatically, just like when we use "enemy combatant" I'm like, "yeah, troops and soldiers." Our laws are actually pretty clearly when it comes right down to it, and so now the popular thing for our leaders to do to get around them is to sling some bull about the terms. It would be like me saying that I never got a blowjob from a girl, just an "oral relaxant".

    To Wind Song: No one is talking about taking out the duly elected heads of state, but instead taking out AQ cell leaders, who are planning to kill our people and others.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Interesting. I hadn't read this yet. I'm going to look, but do you know where I can find the text of the decision?
    Sorry just noticed your request
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2010cv1469-31

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    Except that congress is already involved in this, and this is a matter of evidentiary support, which falls within the Judiciary. An American terrorist constitutes a domestic threat, not a foreign one.
    Isn't it the relative location that determines a foreign vs domestic threat, and not one's national origin?

    if I tried to blow up Country B's embassy located in Country A-- I am a domestic threat within Country A, and at the same time a foreign threat to Country B. (Assuming mutual and peaceful diplomatic interests)
    If I did so from Country C, I'm a foreign threat to both; regardless of my national origin.


    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    I'm not talking about getting committee approval, but having the Judiciary looking over the evidence used to determine the need to take him out in the action is not undue, since it would work the same as when SWAT has one of their snipers take someone out, having it examined by Internal Affairs to be certain whether it was a lawful shooting, and taking appropriate action.
    In your example its still reviewed under executive purview, not judicial.
    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    As to Jim's point about terminology: Well, yeah, because like I said, we use assassin as a pejorative. It's used to make it seem illicit automatically, just like when we use "enemy combatant" I'm like, "yeah, troops and soldiers." Our laws are actually pretty clearly when it comes right down to it, and so now the popular thing for our leaders to do to get around them is to sling some bull about the terms. It would be like me saying that I never got a blowjob from a girl, just an "oral relaxant".
    Often 'political' is a pejorative too. I totally agree that things are intentionally vilified; and sometimes just the opposite, its played down; as in "it's not torture-- its non-traditional interrogation"

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,356
    Thanks (Given)
    5574
    Thanks (Received)
    6627
    Likes (Given)
    5342
    Likes (Received)
    3966
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Isn't it the relative location that determines a foreign vs domestic threat, and not one's national origin?

    if I tried to blow up Country B's embassy located in Country A-- I am a domestic threat within Country A, and at the same time a foreign threat to Country B. (Assuming mutual and peaceful diplomatic interests)
    If I did so from Country C, I'm a foreign threat to both; regardless of my national origin.



    In your example its still reviewed under executive purview, not judicial.


    Often 'political' is a pejorative too. I totally agree that things are intentionally vilified; and sometimes just the opposite, its played down; as in "it's not torture-- its non-traditional interrogation"
    Help, I'm lost. I must be tired because I'm totally confused about what country I'm in right now! I'm not a threat to anyone.

    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SassyLady View Post
    Help, I'm lost. I must be tired because I'm totally confused about what country I'm in right now! I'm not a threat to anyone.

    I hope its confusing enough to keep me off the radar.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

    My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.
    yep. the blatant claim of execution powers out of nothing, is wrong.
    But If the situation was approached with your basic outline in mind from the begining. the whole business possibly could be worked out in a way that was somewhat close to legally sound. However we're still left with the due process problem. Which is Congressional territory, and they've flubbed the job already.



    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    I wouldn't say it's wrong...problematic maybe, but not wrong. I think taking him out of a position he can do harm to America is absolutely right!
    I would say there's a wrong way to do a right thing. and Executions of Americans by executive fiat is WRONG.

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Fact is he acted lawfully; if he had broke any treaties or other relevant law he could be impeached by congress-- that's the check!
    If congress had a backbone and some didn't think like many on this board that the ends justifies the means, unintended consequences be d-mned. Sure Maybe that's a check, It should be one. The fact is he does not have the authority. so he's broken the law , Again. Plus The Judicial has authority over death penalties.
    And since when is assassinating Americans "lawful"?

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    As for balance, The CIC is responsible for administering to foreign threats for good reason, because if you needed some committee to approve every military action the military would be rendered expediant as Congress.

    something is usually considered tobe good if it performs it's function well-- the military/ CIA did what they are entrusted to do IMO. Gather information on, subvert and eliminate threats to national security--they did, successfully!
    Terrorism is not a State threat. It's like Gangs or Pirates. And there's still no legal or lawful framework for Preemptive strikes, on Foreign states, let alone Gangs, pirates or terrorist.

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    Except that congress is already involved in this, and this is a matter of evidentiary support, which falls within the Judiciary. An American terrorist constitutes a domestic threat, not a foreign one. I'm not talking about getting committee approval, but having the Judiciary looking over the evidence used to determine the need to take him out in the action is not undue, since it would work the same as when SWAT has one of their snipers take someone out, having it examined by Internal Affairs to be certain whether it was a lawful shooting, and taking appropriate action.

    As to Jim's point about terminology: Well, yeah, because like I said, we use assassin as a pejorative. It's used to make it seem illicit automatically, just like when we use "enemy combatant" I'm like, "yeah, troops and soldiers." Our laws are actually pretty clearly when it comes right down to it, and so now the popular thing for our leaders to do to get around them is to sling some bull about the terms. It would be like me saying that I never got a blowjob from a girl, just an "oral relaxant".

    ...
    yep, at the least.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums