• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Memo Outlines Rationale for Drone Strikes on Citizens

Arbo said:
Thanks for showing you do not actually read what is said.

Let me type slower, maybe you will be able to follow.

The ACA was signed into law.

The LAW contained certain deadlines for actions.

It was determined some of the actions could not be done per the timeline the LAW set forth.

The executive branch overrode those timelines.

Who has the authority to modify/change laws?
Click to expand...

Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.​

Once the law is passed, congress tends to give the executive branch some leeway in implementing what was once just paper into what is now reality because they can't predict all the rough patches in transition from that paper to reality.

The White House keeps changing Obamacare. Is that legal?

In 1946, legislators passed the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the way that regulatory agencies carry out legislation. That law both gives agencies discretion in setting up laws, but holds them accountable for carrying out Congress’s intentions.​
 
poweRob said:
Ok but who defines who is a terrorist? Some appointed bureaucrat with no evidence needed. Like I said, it's like Bush and Gitmo.

Bush apologists... "There are only terrorists in Gitmo."
Logical people... "How do you know they are terrorists?"
Bush apologists... "Because they are in Gitmo."
Click to expand...

On some of this stuff you are in a catch 22 situation, damned if you do and damned if you don't. 30% of all Gitmo detainees set free have returned to the battlefield to fight us again. So as an ex-military man I say just keep the entire lot there. But then someone will say 70% were innocent and did no harm to anyone. But then I say, but you are still are setting free 30% who returned to the battlefield to kill me and my fellow soldiers. So the mindset of a military man becomes harden to the fact there is a certain group, a segment of the population who want to turn those in Gitmo free so the can come back to Afghanistan and kill you.

Then there are those who are hollering now about killing this supposedly American terrorist now who would be hollering at us for not killing him when we had the chance if he did come back to the U.S. and blow up a bunch of people, buildings or whatever. It's a no win situation.
 
Perotista said:
On some of this stuff you are in a catch 22 situation, damned if you do and damned if you don't. 30% of all Gitmo detainees set free have returned to the battlefield to fight us again. So as an ex-military man I say just keep the entire lot there. But then someone will say 70% were innocent and did no harm to anyone. But then I say, but you are still are setting free 30% who returned to the battlefield to kill me and my fellow soldiers. So the mindset of a military man becomes harden to the fact there is a certain group, a segment of the population who want to turn those in Gitmo free so the can come back to Afghanistan and kill you.

Then there are those who are hollering now about killing this supposedly American terrorist now who would be hollering at us for not killing him when we had the chance if he did come back to the U.S. and blow up a bunch of people, buildings or whatever. It's a no win situation.
Click to expand...

It's a clear situation however of whether or not we want to be a nation of laws or a nation of people making arbitrary rules on a whim.
 
Perotista said:
I have no problem with it. Regardless of where one is born, if they are a terrorist and an enemy of the United States, targeting them overseas is just fine with me.
Click to expand...

It's the process that's of main concern, no?
 
poweRob said:
It's a clear situation however of whether or not we want to be a nation of laws or a nation of people making arbitrary rules on a whim.
Click to expand...

All well and good for the ones sitting in a nice cozy home and not out there taking the risks against someone you already captured once. It's bad enough to have to face these guys once, let alone when your fellow Americans send them back a second time, give them a second chance to succeed in killing more U.S. soldiers when they failed the first time.
 
Perotista said:
All well and good for the ones sitting in a nice cozy home and not out there taking the risks against someone you already captured once. It's bad enough to have to face these guys once, let alone when your fellow Americans send them back a second time, give them a second chance to succeed in killing more U.S. soldiers when they failed the first time.
Click to expand...

I see your point but what about law?
 
Montecresto said:
It's the process that's of main concern, no?
Click to expand...

The process is fairly simple, fly a drone over the target, drop a bomb, retrieve the drone. Snipers are out of vogue nowadays.
 
poweRob said:
I see your point but what about law?
Click to expand...

Supposedly any combatant captured is to be treated as a POW, now terrorist do not exactly fall into that category, but one could probably put the Taliban fighters into. That is basically what we have at Gitmo. According to the Geneva Convention POW's do not have to be released prior to the war's ending. POW's also do not fall under U.S. law, they fall under the UCMJ. Or at least that was what I learned.

Now President Obama wants to treat these guys and have them fall under U.S. criminal law like anyone one who robbed a 7-11 or liquor store. Now if they were captured within U.S. borders I could understand that, although even then if he was a Taliban or AQ member he could be treated as a spy or saboteur. Once again with the military taking jurisdiction. Capturing the enemy overseas until President Obama has always been purely military.

As far as I am concerned, President Obama has brought an aspect into all of this that doesn't belong and has never belong or was done until he took the office of the president. By this nation or any other I might add.
 
Perotista said:
The process is fairly simple, fly a drone over the target, drop a bomb, retrieve the drone. Snipers are out of vogue nowadays.
Click to expand...

Haha, funny you. For every one "alleged" enemy combatant, ten civilians are killed, and then there's the execution without due process point.
 
Perotista said:
Supposedly any combatant captured is to be treated as a POW, now terrorist do not exactly fall into that category, but one could probably put the Taliban fighters into. That is basically what we have at Gitmo. According to the Geneva Convention POW's do not have to be released prior to the war's ending. POW's also do not fall under U.S. law, they fall under the UCMJ. Or at least that was what I learned.

Now President Obama wants to treat these guys and have them fall under U.S. criminal law like anyone one who robbed a 7-11 or liquor store. Now if they were captured within U.S. borders I could understand that, although even then if he was a Taliban or AQ member he could be treated as a spy or saboteur. Once again with the military taking jurisdiction. Capturing the enemy overseas until President Obama has always been purely military.

As far as I am concerned, President Obama has brought an aspect into all of this that doesn't belong and has never belong or was done until he took the office of the president. By this nation or any other I might add.
Click to expand...

I can understand having it under military law or under civilian law. Either way so long as there is law. What I'm opposed to is fabricating a nonexistent third way so as to no abide by law at all and just make things up as we go. Which is what the Bush admin did with declaring terrorist not under the purview of civilian law but are enemies who are also not under military rules of engagement either.

I think our justice system is where they belong. We need to lead by example and the best example is consistency IMO. It worked well for the blind sheik, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, the Ted Kacisnsky and all other sorts of people who've terrorized the nation over time.
 
Montecresto said:
Haha, funny you. For every one "alleged" enemy combatant, ten civilians are killed, and then there's the execution without due process point.
Click to expand...

You know, this may sound pretty harsh but war is war. We try as hard as we can to prevent civilian casualties, the other side doesn't give a darn. We really on our side fight a gentleman's war as much as possible. We have so many rules and regulations to follow that the other side doesn't it at times creates an uneven battlefield.

They tell me the last good war, the last declared was was WWII, with its fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. With the London Blitz, the targeting of civilians and their cities on purpose. That war was fought to win and we won. War is ugly and nasty, it is about killing people and breaking things, perhaps if we fought all wars like we did in WWII, there wouldn't be as many. Perhaps if we made congress to actually declare war instead of a resolution which is nothing more than an opinion of congress, there wouldn't be so many. If we put all the United States on a war footing like we did in WWII to include rationing and war bonds and the like, perhaps we wouldn't have so many. But today we try to make it seem like there is no war going on at all for the civilians in the United States, we try to keep their lives as normal as if there were no war at all. If every citizen knew they would have to make sacrifices if war is declared, perhaps we wouldn't have so many.

But if we have one, if we declare war on a nation we should go in to win the dang thing, throw everything we got to include the kitchen sink and then get our boys home where they belong.
 
poweRob said:
I can understand having it under military law or under civilian law. Either way so long as there is law. What I'm opposed to is fabricating a nonexistent third way so as to no abide by law at all and just make things up as we go. Which is what the Bush admin did with declaring terrorist not under the purview of civilian law but are enemies who are also not under military rules of engagement either.

I think our justice system is where they belong. We need to lead by example and the best example is consistency IMO. It worked well for the blind sheik, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, the Ted Kacisnsky and all other sorts of people who've terrorized the nation over time.
Click to expand...

I suppose what you describe is why they are called detainees instead of POW's. Any terrorist, which they are not considered a military unit under Geneva, like I said, more like a saboteur or spy. I think a military tribunal could handle them. I suspect all of the 150 or whatever number is left at Gitmo could easily and quickly be judged by a military tribunal. Probably within 6 months to a year. But President Obama refuses to do so, he wants them all in a civilian court of law. So there is your catch 22 again. One side saying no to the civilian law side and the other saying no to the military law side and all those in Gitmo caught in-between. At least that was the way it was 2 years ago when I retired.

the blind sheik, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, the Ted Kacisnsky were all caught within the borders of the United States and all were U.S. citizens that I know of, in the case of the sheik, he may have been a legal resident but not a citizen. None of those were caught in our war overseas. Different situations and circumstances and they in reality have nothing in common with those caught overseas. Trying to make it so doesn't make it so.
 
Perotista said:
You know, this may sound pretty harsh but war is war. We try as hard as we can to prevent civilian casualties, the other side doesn't give a darn. We really on our side fight a gentleman's war as much as possible. We have so many rules and regulations to follow that the other side doesn't it at times creates an uneven battlefield.

They tell me the last good war, the last declared was was WWII, with its fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. With the London Blitz, the targeting of civilians and their cities on purpose. That war was fought to win and we won. War is ugly and nasty, it is about killing people and breaking things, perhaps if we fought all wars like we did in WWII, there wouldn't be as many. Perhaps if we made congress to actually declare war instead of a resolution which is nothing more than an opinion of congress, there wouldn't be so many. If we put all the United States on a war footing like we did in WWII to include rationing and war bonds and the like, perhaps we wouldn't have so many. But today we try to make it seem like there is no war going on at all for the civilians in the United States, we try to keep their lives as normal as if there were no war at all. If every citizen knew they would have to make sacrifices if war is declared, perhaps we wouldn't have so many.

But if we have one, if we declare war on a nation we should go in to win the dang thing, throw everything we got to include the kitchen sink and then get our boys home where they belong.
Click to expand...

But that hasn't anything to do with drones, civilian casualties and the lack of due process.
 
danarhea said:
This means that our government can kill any American they want by fiat, on just their say so, without a trial, and without having to present evidence. This alone should be considered grounds for Obama's impeachment.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the impeachment part...but I agree 100% with everything else.

It's staggering the blind obedience people have to all that is government...like little trained minions, they believe whatever they are told when the government throws words like 'patriotism' and 'national security' around.

So, what is to legally stop the POTUS assassinating ANYONE he feels like - even political enemies when they are abroad - on his say so that they are terrorists?

If this is they way America is going, where her people are fine with their leader being able to legally murder anyone he feels like, whenever he feels like...then I hope America goes the way of the Roman Empire and ends.


And, btw, I am neither Rep nor Dem.
 
Last edited:
Blue_State said:
I don't see this as the same situation. A person committing a lethal act should be dealt with. A guy who is doing a weird desert obstacle course or sitting around a campfire saying the US sucks isn't reason to hit him with a air strike.
Click to expand...

Oh, the situations are structurally different, indeed. But, while the domestic criminal could be isolated and "smoked out" in some way or another, the guy planing attacks on US and its allies assets and citizens that sends bombs to execute these plans, cannot be prevented from further murder by the domestically feasible methods. So you are actually proposing that these people should be allowed further mass murder, because they are Americans. I do not think that is okay.
 
This seems like a violation of the 5th Amendment, to me. I wonder how long it will be before someone figures out a way to violate the 3rd Amendment. That's the only one I can think of that hasn't been violated in modern times.
 
joG said:
Oh, the situations are structurally different, indeed. But, while the domestic criminal could be isolated and "smoked out" in some way or another, the guy planing attacks on US and its allies assets and citizens that sends bombs to execute these plans, cannot be prevented from further murder by the domestically feasible methods. So you are actually proposing that these people should be allowed further mass murder, because they are Americans. I do not think that is okay.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is ok to mass murder Americans. I don't see them as having a real ability to mass murder Americans. Americans are typically in America. Unless he is launching missile strikes, he has to launch or have someone launch that attack in America.

We have done a fairly good job of policing this stuff up. The biggest terrorists in American society right now seem to be teenagers.
 
danarhea said:
Is the person really a terrorist, or are you content to just take the government's word for it? This is why trial by a jury is ingrained into our Constitution.
Click to expand...

Although if an attack is imminent and a drone could take out the threat, I would allow the government to go Jack Bauer on their asses.
 
Blue_State said:
....I don't see them as having a real ability to mass murder Americans. Americans are typically in America.
....
Click to expand...

I am afraid I must point out that both statements are absolutely wrong or wrong headed. That might have queered your view. I hope that was it.
 
poweRob said:
From what I understand Anwar al-Awlaki was an American killed by a drone strike in Yemen and he hadn't killed anyone nor made any of the plans that killed anyone. They just said he was thinking about doing it and that he talked a lot of ****.
Click to expand...


He was essentially the Jihadist Jane Fonda.
 
WCH said:
Although if an attack is imminent and a drone could take out the threat, I would allow the government to go Jack Bauer on their asses.
Click to expand...

I really want to agree to that. If our representatives approved it, I could support that.
 
WCH said:
Although if an attack is imminent and a drone could take out the threat, I would allow the government to go Jack Bauer on their asses.
Click to expand...

The government has declared many an imminent threat and gone Jack Bauer often, and unnecessarily enough. The "government" can't be trusted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom