Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59

Thread: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

  1. #11
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal
    It may not be a matter of supporting it. The job of the people is to stay informed on upcoming laws such as this, and they do it with the help of the press. Because the press never reports on these laws and citizens have become lazy, the government gets to usurp more and more power each day.
    1. The press never reports on these laws because they are in bed with the government. Freedom of the press no longer exists because such freedoms are controlled and limited through other mechanisms than outright banning. The control of information flow is as effective as imposing a government censor.
    2. Many decisions that affect the lives of citizens are made behind closed doors.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  2. #12
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    What if the citizen is aiding Al Qaeda from within the U.S. indirectly? Do they lose their habeas corpus rights because they're an "enemy combattant"?

    I hope it applies to combattants on foreign soil only, and even then, if they can capture them there should still be an obligation to uphold the constitution for citizens.
    If you are actively trying to do harm to Americans, our troops or our interest, you deserve to be shot and killed. You really think if an American is firing on a group of Marines, or even American citizens the right thing to do is to worry about his rights? That makes no sense. You protect the innocent before you protect the guilty.

  3. #13
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    If you are actively trying to do harm to Americans, our troops or our interest, you deserve to be shot and killed. You really think if an American is firing on a group of Marines, or even American citizens the right thing to do is to worry about his rights? That makes no sense. You protect the innocent before you protect the guilty.
    I kinda agree with this. At the same time, many of the folks classified as criminals are actively trying to "do harm to Americans" as well - this includes Americans who steal from other Americans, Americans who kill other Americans, and Americans who break into other Americans' homes. Why do they have rights?

    What's the dividing line between a criminal and a combatant? Our justice system treated Tim McVeigh more as the former than the latter.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  4. #14
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    active to me implies that they are in the act of causing harm to Americans. So there is a difference between someone who has killed Americans, and is trying to kill Americans. If the police or military are pursuing someone who has harmed Americans but is not in the act of trying to kill Americans then there is no need for them to use lethal force. But if someone is a threat to the lives of those men and women pursuing them or innocent people nearby then lethal force is not only warranted but should be expected.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    active to me implies that they are in the act of causing harm to Americans.
    If someone is firing at a someone and the only way to stop them is to fire back, nobody is going to complain. It happens nearly every single day.

    So there is a difference between someone who has killed Americans, and is trying to kill Americans. If the police or military are pursuing someone who has harmed Americans but is not in the act of trying to kill Americans then there is no need for them to use lethal force. But if someone is a threat to the lives of those men and women pursuing them or innocent people nearby then lethal force is not only warranted but should be expected.
    For someone simply being "accused" of say plotting to kill Americans, they have constitutional rights that say we can not simply go off and kill them.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    If someone is a combatant, that person is a legitimate military objective. Citizenship does not change that. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Laws of War confer special status on combatants based on their citizenship.

  7. #17
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    If someone is a combatant, that person is a legitimate military objective. Citizenship does not change that. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Laws of War confer special status on combatants based on their citizenship.
    Agreed. Still, the line can be rather fuzzy.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    What if the citizen is aiding Al Qaeda from within the U.S. indirectly? Do they lose their habeas corpus rights because they're an "enemy combattant"?

    I hope it applies to combattants on foreign soil only, and even then, if they can capture them there should still be an obligation to uphold the constitution for citizens.
    It's my understanding that the lawyers were talking about combatants on foreign soil, not individuals arrested in the U.S. nor captured combatants (who, at a minimum would enjoy certain rights as prisoners of war).

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    What's the dividing line between a criminal and a combatant? Our justice system treated Tim McVeigh more as the former than the latter.
    Whether one is contributing to what reasonably can be described as military operations, battlefield activity, etc. is the dividing line. In other words, if someone properly meets the definition of a civilian, that person is not a legitimate military objective.

    McVeigh carried out an act of terrorism but was not involved with a military group (regular or irregular) that was waging combat against the U.S. Even if he had fled the U.S., the proper course of action would have been to seek his extradition. In contrast, the American-born Yemeni sheikh was engaged in command-and-control operations for Al Qaeda in Yemen, a number of which were directed against U.S. interests and allies, and was a legitimate military objective.

  10. #20
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

    There has never been even an allegation that American had "taken arms" against the USA. A platitude was used to replace the actual reality. Was that American shooting at anyone? No. Any evidence even offered he ever had? No.

    Rather, it is the question of if an American were to leave the USA and express pro-Al Qaeda statements can he therefore be assasinated? Specifically, he was a "preacher" preaching in favor of Al-Qaeda. Can an American be assasinated on a presidential order for preaching armed resistance against the United States? The Obama adminstrations says yes, that is a presidential authority.

    I have yet to find in the Constitution where the President can issue a summary death warrant for anyone. If I'm mistaken, state how?

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •