Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 112

Thread: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?

    It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.
    Perhaps you should read these articles before condemning the Obama Administration's efforts to going after al-Alawki using drones.

    Source: How an American was killed by the secretive U.S. drone program - The Globe and Mail

    Source: Anwar al-Awlaki Targeted By U.S. Drones After Osama Bin Laden Raid - ABC News

    Source: CIA seeks new authority to expand Yemen drone campaign - Washington Post

    Source: Pakistani Attorney Blasts U.S. For Yemen Drone Strike Authorization - US News and World Report

    Get the jist of what's really going on before issues your own brand of condemnation. It's not like the U.S. is just going into Yemen of their own accord without considering the effects of their actions. Contrary to what many may think, protecting the lives of innocent civilians is taken into account. Besides, as the ABCNews article makes clear, all al-Alwlaki has (or had) to do is turn himself in and the drone strikes would end...

    ...that is until the next Al-Quaeda hinchmen presents himself.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-10-13 at 03:36 PM.

  2. #22
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion
    until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon
    i suspect Obama would agree with that as would dicknbush
    You mean the memos that they have, until very recently, kept in secret? How generous of you, and of course I am sure such latitude was shown towards Bush, as well

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    You mean the memos that they have, until very recently, kept in secret? How generous of you, and of course I am sure such latitude was shown towards Bush, as well
    Come now. You act as if this is the first time a sitting President has kept executive memos out of the public eye. In my lifetime, from JFK to Obama, they've all done it.

  4. #24
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Come now. You act as if this is the first time a sitting President has kept executive memos out of the public eye. I my lifetime, from JFK to Obama, they've all done it.
    No, I am not. I am responding to someone who wrote "show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon" to support his attempt to equate law with opinion of WH legal counsel

  5. #25
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,351

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?

    It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.
    Good afternoon, CJ.

    It's scary to think you are probably correct! The regimes we don't currently agree with seem to change with regularity,and we are left to wonder why, and how it became our responsibility to meddle and make changes. I know that many times it's the rebellious segment of the population that have asked us for help, and lots of money, BTW, but then we learn we have simply changed one despot for another in many cases, and the populous are no better off than they were before, if not worst. Great Britain and Russia went through the same thing in their desire to expand their influence, and created a mess which is still playing out today in many cases. I am all for letting other countries handle their own problems! Our country has its own problems to handle, IMO.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,937
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    How a US Citizen Came to Be in America's Cross Hairs



    This lengthy apologia for Obama's drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16 year old son, and another American of marginal importance in Yemen is supposed to impress us with how meticulous the administration was about the legal issues surrounding the kill.

    We learn that two lawyers who wrote "the definitive" critique of Bush's assertion of presidential wartime powers miraculously were able to find a way to justify the Obama administrations' actions with regard to Anwar-al-Awlaki. Well of course they were. They found a way to have their cake and eat it, too, saying that what Bush did, or rather how Bush's administration justified what was being done, was not legally correct and their justification for what Obama did was legally correct. A fine pair of cynical partisan lawyers they. I'm sure al-Awlaki is relieved to learn that his death was not the result of the President claiming too much authority but rather was the result of legal hair splitting over how much of an imminent threat to the US he, al-Awlaki, really was.

    This article in the New York Times, linked above, also, I think, is supposed to impress us about how much of a one off thing al-Awlaki's assassination was and that this administration wouldn't consider killing American's anywhere without going through a painful and lengthy legal process. However, I come away with the impression that the administration's lawyers will find a way to justify whatever the President wants to do regardless of what it is even if it directly contradicts what those lawyers have written and opined in the past.

    So, hypocritical as it might seem, they found their legal pretext to nail al-Awlaki, but not the other two. Not al-Awlaki's son or the guy whose sins against America amounted to publishing a blog. The latter two were taken out as collateral damage, a reminder that what we are talking about is war, a blunt instrument and one not well suited to legal niceties.

    Failing to draw a hard line between war powers and civilian legalities does damage to both.
    I have no problem with a drone strike to take out this AQ agent/member even if he is an American citizen in Yemen. AQ is a certified terrorist organization and killing a terrorist by any means of any citizenship is okay in my book. Now on U.S. soil I might have to think about it a bit. Question, do they still issue the WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE posters?
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #27
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I think people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned terrorist is concerned.
    Define “terrorist”. This could be read as claiming people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned criminals is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    As such, the "Constituational - value driven perception" that has formulated does tend to remain fixed in legalism rather than fighting against tyranny or subvertive efforts against your homeland. Put another way: "Where IS the line drawn between protecting the Constituational rights of Americans who happen to live abroad yet continue to espouse apersions against American national security interests and defending against tyranny?"
    This question seems to espouse the idea that the Constitution may be disregarded, given time and circumstance, or that it no longer applies to you, if you commit crimes, or even suspected of being an enemy combatant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    The question folks should really be asking themselves is "Why hasn't he come forward and turned himself in to U.S. authorities" so that he could be tried justly in U.S. courts for treason? People don't ask themselves such questions because they are concerned not with justice under the law, but rather which side is right and which is wrong based moreso on political ideology than adherence to the law.
    Strict adherence to the law is driven by political ideology. The Constitution was specifically meant to restrain government from tyranny. It makes no sense to ask why a criminal doesn’t turn himself in, and to say those who do not ask this question are more concerned with personal morality. Strict adherence to the law IS political ideology. The Constitution is the line in the sand whether you are a criminal or the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    On a personal note: I've struggle with the issue of drone strikes against Americans abroad for some time now, but only came to the conclusion recently that such strikes are justifiable but only after all other avenues to capture said fugative have been exsaulted.
    It is good to exhaust all avenues, but this basically claims that ‘anything goes’ once patience has run out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Yes, that's right: YEMEN!
    Then if they are hiding him, not cooperating with his capture as he continues to even make attacks on the United States, then we know who we can declare war on (if nothing else, to expedite cooperation), don’t we? Especially if he is the true threat the government says he was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Frankly, I would rather we did capture the guy and give him his day in court, but apparently that wasn't possible. So, he got what he got.
    So you espouse imperialist policies that make the whole world a battle field in which the American government has the right to fire missiles anywhere it chooses, even without a given countries cooperation. Try that crap in Russia or China and see what happens.

    You have fine rationalization for the dismissal of the rule of law.

  8. #28
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,560
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    and he sought a legal opinion to assist that determination when it was found that the enemy combatant was also of American birth
    and his decision appears consistent with the proffered legal reasoning
    He should have dispensed with the lawyers. Adding them only made the whole process seem like a cynical exercise in hypocrisy.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    yet another "anything to blame Obama" thread. Seriously, the dude was out in Yemen hanging out with terrorists and got killed for it? That is the evil that obama did? That is whjat you want us to be offended at now? Sort of like how they wanted us to be offended when obama actually ordered the killing of OBL.

    Show us where Obama has ordered a drone strikes on some guy having tea in the UK, or some kid up at casino niagra. The fact he killed some guy for chilling with terrorists doen't bother me, and it certainly would not bother any of the detractors in this thread if it were a republican doing it. the fake outrage is palpable, but it is still fake. However, in case you are really worried it might be a good idea to stop supporting the terrorists who attack americans. Since you seem to be on their side now trying to defend them I thought perhaps you might want to know it is a dangerous place to be. You might want to put off the trip to Yemen to go hanging out in your terrorist friend's basement. I hear his mom is a real PITA anyway.

  10. #30
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,560
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    Define “terrorist”. This could be read as claiming people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned criminals is concerned.



    This question seems to espouse the idea that the Constitution may be disregarded, given time and circumstance, or that it no longer applies to you, if you commit crimes, or even suspected of being an enemy combatant.



    Strict adherence to the law is driven by political ideology. The Constitution was specifically meant to restrain government from tyranny. It makes no sense to ask why a criminal doesn’t turn himself in, and to say those who do not ask this question are more concerned with personal morality. Strict adherence to the law IS political ideology. The Constitution is the line in the sand whether you are a criminal or the government.



    It is good to exhaust all avenues, but this basically claims that ‘anything goes’ once patience has run out.



    Then if they are hiding him, not cooperating with his capture as he continues to even make attacks on the United States, then we know who we can declare war on (if nothing else, to expedite cooperation), don’t we? Especially if he is the true threat the government says he was.



    So you espouse imperialist policies that make the whole world a battle field in which the American government has the right to fire missiles anywhere it chooses, even without a given countries cooperation. Try that crap in Russia or China and see what happens.

    You have fine rationalization for the dismissal of the rule of law.
    It seems that there is the Constitution and there is the Constitution of your imagination.

    In the real Constitution when a US citizen joins foreign combatants to take up arms against the US then he has revoked his citizenship and becomes a foreign combatant. There need no longer be any concern about his rights as a citizen. His disposition becomes a military matter to be handled by military means, and that includes his identification as a foreign combatant. So it is not a matter of patience running out and claiming that anything goes, it is a matter of established law.

    People are often astonished to find something in the Constitution that they don't like, but there it is.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •