• 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. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

if obama's security team did their job they would have stumbled unmistakably on to correspondence leading directly from hasan to al awlaki who was in steady contact with mutallab

instead, the pc culture which fostered and promoted hasan held sway

and the result was an 86 page report on fort hood which refused to discuss the assassin's motives, intentions, connections...

sorry

obama's incompetent

he also holds bizarre, extremist pro-muslim views which have gone dangerously far in shaping our crumbling foreign policy
 
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?
This guy looks like Avner Eisenberg from Jewel of the Nile. :lol:
 
if obama's security team did their job they would have stumbled unmistakably on to correspondence leading directly from hasan to al awlaki who was in steady contact with mutallab

instead, the pc culture which fostered and promoted hasan held sway

and the result was an 86 page report on fort hood which refused to discuss the assassin's motives, intentions, connections...

sorry

obama's incompetent

he also holds bizarre, extremist pro-muslim views which have gone dangerously far in shaping our crumbling foreign policy

So because the NSA had the capability to read each email written by every American, and Hasan's emails to Awlaki were among those, you deduce that Obama is incompetent and holds bizarre, extremist pro-Muslim views. That's quite a leap.
 
well, they could have tried, at least

LOL!

instead of issuing a comprehensive EXPLANATION of fort hood that never mentions the word "islam"

had intel done its job after fort hood it would have stumbled unmistakably on to significant correspondence with awlaki who was in inspirational contact with mutallab, the jingle bells jihadist

no leap was attempted

the president is bizarrely pro muslim

ask netanyahu

UPDATE 4-Netanyahu cancels trip to Obama's nuclear summit | News by Country | Reuters
 
well, they could have tried, at least

LOL!

instead of issuing a comprehensive EXPLANATION of fort hood that never mentions the word "islam"

had intel done its job after fort hood it would have stumbled unmistakably on to significant correspondence with awlaki who was in inspirational contact with mutallab, the jingle bells jihadist

no leap was attempted

the president is bizarrely pro muslim

ask netanyahu

Do you have evidence that Mutallab's communications with Awlaki were available for investigation? How would we intercept emails between Nigeria and Yemen?
 
how could we find evidence if we didn't even look for it?

think about it
 
I like how people have managed to talk themselves into thinking that the government being able to kill you without trial is OK under "the right circumstances."

Health care reform? Slippery slope to communism.

Targeted killing of American citizens? No way that can get out of hand.
 
I like how people have managed to talk themselves into thinking that the government being able to kill you without trial is OK under "the right circumstances."

Health care reform? Slippery slope to communism.

Targeted killing of American citizens? No way that can get out of hand.





I like how your blaming us over thkse who would blow your wife and child not to mention you up in a heartbeat. Rules are different in war.
 
What? I only get love when you use me to bash Dubya??

Sincerely,
Due process
 
At which point it is not warfare. It is genocide, ethnic cleansing, sectarian violence, murder. A crime, not a war.
It becimes a matter for the GCs when one of the parties is a signatory. What you cite above are criminal actions which take place during a conflict. Murder ethnic clensing genocide etc.



It is then not war, as I listed above.
The war in Afghanistan can not be declared as a war because none of the partied in conflict with Afghanistan recognized the Tallaban as the legitimate government. Only Saudi and I think one other nation did.
However that does not matter as the GCs are rather clear about when and how they apply. Making a formal declaration of war irrelivant.
 
The GC designates lawful combatants, which would imply that anyone deviating from those standards is an unlawful combatant.

It doesn't. It breaks it down into what you would consider a combatant, a civillian and a criminal. There is no such thing as an illegal combatant.
 
It doesn't. It breaks it down into what you would consider a combatant, a civillian and a criminal. There is no such thing as an illegal combatant.

The Geneva Conventions stipulates the laws of war. What would you call a combatant who deviates from the laws of war if not an "unlawful combatant"? Furthermore, if we assume that no such designation exists, even implicitly, then such actors are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and may be treated in whatever manner deemed as necessary by the capturing forces.
 
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?
Frankly I don't care given the circumstances. And like the others' said, I believe his citizenship was revoked anyway.
 
The Geneva Conventions stipulates the laws of war. What would you call a combatant who deviates from the laws of war if not an "unlawful combatant"? Furthermore, if we assume that no such designation exists, even implicitly, then such actors are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and may be treated in whatever manner deemed as necessary by the capturing forces.

You are looking at the GCs the wrong way. It is not about how non signatories prosecute war, but about how signatories (i.e. us) do. It classes everyone as either regular or irregular troops, civillians (protected persons) or criminals, and sets the relevant restrictions are placed upon those once captured. But everyone falls into one of these catagories. If there is any doubt about which catagory, they remain Protected Persons until their actual catagory has been defined.

However, all of these accords (GCII) presuppose that you have the buggers in captivity.
 
I have a hard time gathering up any sympathy for this asshole. He reaps what he's sown, as far as I'm concerned.

I think in extreme situations like this, where a citizen has actually taken up arms against his/her country, they have lost any right to complain about lack of 'due process'.

That said, I don't know exactly what the command from the white house was. Was it just authorization of use of deadly force to capture him? If so, that's no different than what we do with any criminal. Or, was it just an outright mark for death with no intention of capture whatsoever?

It *should* have been the former and not the latter. But I wouldn't weep if they "had" to kill him in the process of trying to capture him.
 
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

I read a related story last week and was horrified that we apparently now have an administration who supports it openly, or at least that is my understanding.
 
I have a hard time gathering up any sympathy for this asshole. He reaps what he's sown, as far as I'm concerned.

I think in extreme situations like this, where a citizen has actually taken up arms against his/her country, they have lost any right to complain about lack of 'due process'.

That said, I don't know exactly what the command from the white house was. Was it just authorization of use of deadly force to capture him? If so, that's no different than what we do with any criminal. Or, was it just an outright mark for death with no intention of capture whatsoever?

It *should* have been the former and not the latter. But I wouldn't weep if they "had" to kill him in the process of trying to capture him.

My understanding is that authorization was given to assassinate the guy. I do have a problem with that since he's an American citizen. If they can locate him to assassinate him, then they can locate him to attempt arrest. That being said, if he resists arrest or otherwise tries to kill those apprehending him, it woulnd't bother me one bit for them to handle him with extreme prejudice and force.
 
My understanding is that authorization was given to assassinate the guy. I do have a problem with that since he's an American citizen. If they can locate him to assassinate him, then they can locate him to attempt arrest. That being said, if he resists arrest or otherwise tries to kill those apprehending him, it woulnd't bother me one bit for them to handle him with extreme prejudice and force.




If he's hiding among savages, I would be more upset at riskin the lives of soldiers to get him.


Send him an eviction notice at the end of a JDAM with love. :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom