US citizen NO due process. Al Q US due process

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
I am sure there must be a difference . I hope someone can help me understand what it is

In BO's world it is ok to kill an American citizen, even a 16 y o on foreign soil without any due process
but we bring OBL's son in law to US for due process.

My known dislike of many of BO's policies not withstanding I seriously would like to understand the difference between the 2 approaches.
 
The ones we kill are "imminent threats" to our national security (like the 16 y/o who was an imminent threat while in Yemen sitting at a cafe having lunch). Also, you can kill Americans if they are combatants in a warzone. I guess that means Yemen is a province of Terror, the country with which we are at war.
 
Obviously Obama is a terrorist-loving closet muslim hoping to destroy our great country. I think you for you vigilance.

I know you're not really interested in seeing anything other than what you're looking for, but doesn't the "foreign soil" part of your question suggest a difference?

Further, maybe it's in the national interest to bring Usama's son to the US. Do you know that it's not?

I'm not comfortable with killing American citizens who are not combatants or supporting the persons who mean this country harm. Frankly, I'm not terribly comfortable with blowing up anybody on foreign soil without thorough intelligence that indicates the target is indeed an enemy.

We were sloppy with the drones early in the Afghan war. I recollect that we blew up one guy because he was tall and wearing a burnoose. I'm in hopes that we've become more discrete.
 
RV?
both the Americans BO killed without any due process and OBl's sil were on foreign soil.

Once we brought OBL SIL into our court system he was accorded due process which means he will not be interrogated like he could have been if he'd been sent to the GITMO prison.



so what advantage is there to let the SIL live and bring him to USA for due process while killing an American thereby denying him his due process?
WHY , in your opinion is the OBL SIL more worthy of our Due Process than one of our own citizens?
 
NYT has an interesting report on this today: The Link

Al-Awlaki was some sort of motivator or spiritual advisor to various terrorists including the failed underwear bomber. And apparently the underwear bomber was such a close call that it scared POTUS or someone in the White House into demanding action by putting pressure on the CIA and Pentagon to find and take out al-Awlaki. I believe the lawyers who wrote the brief outlining the case for taking him out were thoughtful, but given the political pressure, wrote their opinion with a preordained outcome. I also believe that the 16 innocent bystanders (including al-Awlaki's son, a US citizen) who were killed in a subsequent drone stroke that missed its intended target, will do more to harm our national security than the successful take down of al-Awlaki and Khan (incidentally also a US citizen, but it's okay apparently because he was collateral damage in the legal assassination of al-Awlaki).
 
In reply to
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am sure there must be a difference . I hope someone can help me understand what it is
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Simple logistics. When a person is captured by international autorities and turned over to you, you don't have to kill them with a drone strike. Just like most times police confrontations end up with the bad guy in handcuffs, sometimes in a body bag.
 
Worst case scenaio, drone strike takes out political opponents. Clearly unacceptable.

Must use case -- terrorist armed with nukes or nerve gas taken out with drone strike when conventional capture would endanger thousands of lives.

The problem with rule and laws is that they are intended to cover the situations envisioned at the time of writing -- and sometimes following rules and laws requires an outcome that is stupid and unacceptable.
 
So far no one from the BO admin has explained what al Awlaki did that was so much worse than the OBL SIL and what was so bad that he deserved out right killing.
Outright killing that included killing another American citizen.
His 16 y o son was killed in another incident. There should be outrage especially compared to bringing a relative of OBL to USA for due process.



does anyone consider al alwaki a combatant?
 
Athought it was a plot in an Hawaii 5-0 episode in the 1970s, the idea of a guy doing massive damage to a federal building with a truck load of fertilizer would have seemed pretty "far fetched" to most of us, as would taking down the Word Trade Center with a couple of hijacked airliners. Just because you and I and other smart people haven't thought of it, doesn't mean it will never happen and that we can design 'rules" that will appropriately guide folks whose job it would be to confront that sitatuion. Like 'em or not, you have to give executives some leeway and trust them to do the right things. Comprehensive rules result in stupid outcomes, like the "no tolerance" ruling that forced an honor student into allternative school because there was a butter knife in a boxlload of stuff in the trunk he's delivering to Goodwill after school.
 
I could imagine those things. However, I don't believe in using the rare cases of terror to gain power and intimidate citizens into voluntarily giving up their rights. As long as we are not powerless to protest such actions, we should not remain silent as silence encourages the tormentor but not the tormented.
 
rv
Do you consider Al Awlaki a combatnat?
and /or in your opinion did BO etc consider Al awlaki a combatant?
 
"If I say I consider Al Awlaki a combatnat will you shut the **** up for 20 minutes? '

Chango Who on earth forced you to read this thread?

but to answer you question No I won't shut up even if you said al Awalki was a combatant but i would like you to explain what definition you use to consider him one.

I am sure Bi will be along any second to make fun of your error. since BI is a libertarian and all.
rolleyes.gif
 
I just find it amusing to think about the complete shitstorm that would be underway in the media if this was policy was coming from anyone but Obama.
 
rv
thank you for responding. Interesting that you call him an enemy not a combatant.
I consider Al Awaki a traitor.
You say he could not have been captured, and the NYT article also said that
How do we know? did we try?

You do know we killed another American when he killed al Alwaki ?
and of course his son a few days later
so we killed 3 Americans.

You say you think BO has been more careful. On Dec 24 a BO directed drone killed women and children in Yemen.I guess the drone could have killed MORE kids so maybe that is what you mwan by careful

Either we have a Constitution or we don't. Yes AlAwaki was a despicable human being but as we heard so often when discussing the 3 foreigners we waterboarded we should be better than everyone else. Killing 3 Americans without due process doesn't seen like we are any better does it?
Killing our own citizens who were not taking arms up against us is not being better
An Admin saying in response to whether the USA would use lethal force on a non combatant
'“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” should be of concern to all of us all

They hypocrisy of killing Americans without our constitutional due process but according that due process to the SIl of OBL concern us all
 
You want to use the word "combatant" because if you swerve from that you can't hold the partisan line. Was Hitler a combatant? Was Khadaffi a combatant? Are spies?

The word "enemy" aptly describes them all and encompasses our disposition towards them.
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
rv?

This confused me
"You want to use the word "combatant" because if you swerve from that you can't hold the partisan line."
??
So when Eric Holderhe used the word NON -combatants to say BO could kill Americans even if they were non- combatants was he being partisan?
Funny how so many of BO's promises and declarations have fallen by the wayside including that silly edict to not use the word combatant.
 
It's a shame you're irony deaf. You prove my point about your inability to escape partisan lock-step and assume I am the same way.

You asked what I thought, and I told that. Not sure why I'm beholden to what someone else wrote in the Obama administration.

I saw an intellectual lightweight by the name of Allen Dershowitz saying that Holder just fumbled in his explanation of the well-established right of the state to act against a citizen meaning harm to someone else. Police can shoot a man threatening to launch a missile or fire a gun at another person.

Due process takes backseat to immediate threat. Terrorists are an immediate threat.

Do you deny the target in the case you asked me about was a terrorist who meant harm to the US? Why wouldn't you kill him if that is true?

Answer. Don't answer. Doesn't make much difference because you will likely respond with the usual lame sophistry aimed at the president you hate. That's a shame because there are real issues here.

These decisions should not be taken lightly and due diligence must substitute for due process when deciding to kill an American working on foreign soil against the United States. That diligence must be analysed no matter what party is in the White House.
 
"Do you deny the target in the case you asked me about was a terrorist who meant harm to the US? Why wouldn't you kill him if that is true?"

he was an american citizen and unless there are new facts BO has not releaased he did not have a weapon aimed at anyone and had never aimed a weapon at anyone.
If we think osama's SIL is worthy of our due process how can we say a US citizen is not?

Do you think the OBL SIL intended harm to the US?
 
You fall back to your last defense: willful obtuseness.

We apprehended OBL's son-in-law. The terrorist in question here was beyond apprehension. This was covered earlier.

To the post above yours about the determination about this guy being a terrorist: read the NYT article I link. There is very credible evidence that the guy was an enemy of the US.

Now you can go back to your self-generated hysteria. I'll not waste time on the obtuse.

edit: Quick added point: The guy was an accessory to criminal acts that prove his intentions towards the US. He was hiding among our enemies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top