Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As you know I am about as far as one can get from being a liberal but this authority resting solely in the President's hands is Unconstitutional because he has authority to use it on more than just the battlefield. Its too broad and appears to set no good guidelines or limitations necessary to prevent ABUSE!!--Tyr

Unfortunately wwe don't always have the luxury of choosing where the battlefiled is, and isn't.

Anywhere these traitors are making war against the United States, IS the battlefield. It's their choice. And the U.S. Armed Services ARE authorized to make war against them, as they make war against us, regardless of where the traitors have chosen to do it.

Letting them hide by choosing the "wrong" location, is equivalent to giving up. It's a ludicrous suggestion.

Do you think WAR is a place for niceties and parlor games, played with an enemy when he is actively trying to kill you?

I am talking purely about the need to limit the authority as it is defined now not the general application of how its applied to terrorists be they abroad or here in country. As it is written it is Unconstitutional in m opinion. The fact that its so broad ---gives almost limitless power , ripe for abuse and that is Unconstitutional. -Tyr

[taft2012]

So you're going with the Constitutional convenience angle too?

I would consider an argument that attempts to endow enemy combatants overseas with due process rights, regardless of citizenship, as more of an argument of Constitutional convenience...

... than one that affirms the President's authority to blow the living shit out of enemy combatants overseas, regardless of citizenship, who happen to be actively working to kill our troops.

Do I think Obama is an outrageously hypocritical piece of shit, who hyperventilated about foreign enemy combatants being waterboarded overseas, but now is OK with bombing to smithereens American citizens who happen to also be enemy combatants/agents?

Yes, but I am not about to allow his inconsistency to impact my personal consistency. Yes, I think he is perfectly authorized to do this, and yes, I think he's a hypocritical piece of shit.

On a side note; Obviously they have someone identified who is doing something VERY bad. Feck 'im.

[Kathianne]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27...ost-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

I went to the Fox site first, 'cutting edge' sounding a bit dubious. A question, why would an AP file date be in February 2011, the story being post 9/11? Something wrong there.

[fj1200]

I would consider an argument that attempts to endow enemy combatants overseas with due process rights, regardless of citizenship, as more of an argument of Constitutional convenience...

... than one that affirms the President's authority to blow the living shit out of enemy combatants overseas, regardless of citizenship, who happen to be actively working to kill our troops.

Nobody is endowing anyone with anything; the issue is an American citizen who is already "endowed" with those rights. And as far as those actively working to kill our troops SCOTUS has determined 60? years ago that citizens opposing the US on the battle field do not have the right to not be shot.

Do I think Obama is an outrageously hypocritical piece of shit, who hyperventilated about foreign enemy combatants being waterboarded overseas, but now is OK with bombing to smithereens American citizens who happen to also be enemy combatants/agents?

Yes, but I am not about to allow his inconsistency to impact my personal consistency. Yes, I think he is perfectly authorized to do this, and yes, I think he's a hypocritical piece of shit.

That would require a Constitutional authorization.

On a side note; Obviously they have someone identified who is doing something VERY bad. Feck 'im.

I'm all for having the ability to take out these types of people but we shouldn't be willing to sell out the Constitution to make it happen especially vesting all power in one branch.

[taft2012]

Nobody is endowing anyone with anything; the issue is an American citizen who is already "endowed" with those rights. And as far as those actively working to kill our troops SCOTUS has determined 60? years ago that citizens opposing the US on the battle field do not have the right to not be shot.

OK then, if this was already decided, what's the issue?

Edit: or did you just happen to mangle a double negative there?

[revelarts]

It's ditatorial powers.
and if we weren't the big kid on the block none of this crap would fly internationally.

Can we go into China and drone strike? or send a team in to kill a "potential" threat.
What about Russia?
North Korea? Iran?

IF China said -"we have secret intel we can never show anyone" - that there were Buddhist terrorist in the U.S. that want to bomb the Temimen square and they drone struck a few homes in Texas and Vermont -that happened to kill a few kids-.
And the Chiniese gov't sad sorry but we are "at war".

how would that fly? We'd call it BS. and it would mean real war.
There is no real war on potential someday maybe terrorist. it's just ad hoc assassination and slaughter .

[taft2012]

That would require a Constitutional authorization.

The authorization is in the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces status.

I'm all for having the ability to take out these types of people but we shouldn't be willing to sell out the Constitution to make it happen especially vesting all power in one branch.

I'm all for taking them out too, and it's in the Constitution.

It's ditatorial powers.
and if we weren't the big kid on the block none of this crap would fly internationally.

Can we go into China and drone strike? or send a team in to kill a "potential" threat.
What about Russia?
North Korea? Iran?

IF China said -"we have secret intel we can never show anyone" - that there were Buddhist terrorist in the U.S. that want to bomb the Temimen square and they drone struck a few homes in Texas and Vermont -that happened to kill a few kids-.
And the Chiniese gov't sad sorry but we are "at war".

how would that fly? We'd call it BS. and it would mean real war.
There is no real war on potential someday maybe terrorist. it's just ad hoc assassination and slaughter .

In the abstract, that's a compelling argument.

In real life, we have the ability to assist any nation to capture such an individual anywhere within our borders. Pakistan, for instance, admitted themselves they had no such control of the situation in many places within their borders.

We're not doing drone attacks on London because Scotland Yard is quite accommodating when needed.

There is no real war on potential someday maybe terrorist. it's just ad hoc assassination and slaughter .

If you could please refresh my memory: what exactly was the intended military target at the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001, and what steps did the attackers take to avoid collateral damage and slaughter of innocents?

[fj1200]

OK then, if this was already decided, what's the issue?

Edit: or did you just happen to mangle a double negative there?

No double negative there, you just have to read it properly. This case hasn't been decided, battlefield actions have been.

The authorization is in the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces status.

I'm all for taking them out too, and it's in the Constitution.

Your desire for it to be does not make it so. Your justification is so broad that almost anything that happens by directed military action is "in the Constitution" but so far no one has taken up the cause of the "associated force." Almost by definition that person is not on the field of battle. It sucks but citizens have rights that are not to be taken away lightly and especially by the actions of one branch of government.

[revelarts]

[fj1200]

^I do think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Still, drone strikes create an image of an imperial force that acts with little regard to borders/consequences.

[Little-Acorn]

^I do think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Still, drone strikes create an image of an imperial force that acts with little regard to borders/consequences.

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

What part of "WAR" don't you understand?

I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.

[fj1200]

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

Perhaps you could dispense with the strawmen arguments and address the unfortunate fact that a select few, which is really what's at issue here, are citizens. I also see that you failed to address the "associated force" argument.

I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.

Perhaps if you were actually as good at this as you think in your head...

[Kathianne]

I can't believe that anyone thinks it's ok to kill indiscriminately. Innocents are being killed at a faster rate than the terrorists and that makes the US no different than the terrorists.

[fj1200]

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

Yes, he would. But you avoided him being targeted on a kill list and as "associated force."

[revelarts]

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

What part of "WAR" don't you understand?

I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.

was Alwalki ARMED and firing at Americans or with his finger on a bomb trigger when he was drone struck?

Was his SON ARMED and firing at Americans?

what part of War don't you understand.
driving pdwn the road in your car is not and ACT of WAR or a fire fight Acorn.
Standing a Funeral is not WAR.

What part of your Brain Conflates those acts with a Germans shooting across a beach?
you've got the problem Acorn, take off the war glasses and see what going on here.