I wonder what Osama would've said at trial?

The other guy's big notch Saddam, for that matter?

did that make it better?

the point where I couldn't be shocked by any revelations about US dirty-dealing, but I was appalled when I read about how the U.S. manipulated the rules of what could be brought up at trial to hide evidence of the U.S. being all kissee-kissee with Saddam back in the day. No, Saddam didn't get a fair trial.

I was sitting here trying to remember where I read it and I'm almost 100% sure it was in "Web of Deceit: The history of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to GWB," by Barry Lando.

I returned that book to the library a couple of weeks ago, but I just went back and put it on hold again. When I get, it I'll post the particulars in an OP.

the Osama operation was just a case of rolling-up a former CIA asset. As was Saddam (see my post below).

I think the whole account of what happened that night was so much 'fairy-dust'. Sort of reminds me of the official story we're getting on the recent massacre in Afghanistan. Seems the Empire can't get their story straight - ONE soldier did it all.

People, I think I remember, used to as well.

Going by recent conversations, though, maybe not so much anymore.

I've met too many people so unaware that if they were to be informed of an approaching tsunami, they'd say 'Wow,' and turn the channel.

Educated people.

If someone joins a regular military or paramilitary organization and is actively trying to kill U.S. military and civilians, fuck em'. The subjects father brought family members in to an area of hostile operations, KNOWING that those family members are in danger.

From the Second Battle of Bull Run, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Iran, and Afganistan all have and continue to field 16y.o. combatants. Whether this kid was a combatant or not, he was in direct physical proximation to combatants.

War is sloppy. As a veteran I think it sucks, but if I had the choice to bring my kids to a theater of operations, and let them associate with know combatants, that childs death is on my head. Lastly that kid knowingly associated with these people, in an area where they were under threat of attack. Again cry me a river.

Did he lie America into war? Did he destroy the Bill of Rights, too?

Poppy Bush Takes Charge - The Uses of Counterterrorism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=122116

Two questions. Would you bring your child to a field of battle? If you brought you child to a field of battle and allow him to interact, and associate with combatants would you think that that child would be in danger?

brought his child?

The very fact that you claim Yemen is part of the 'field of battle', a country which was/is an ally of the US acknowledges that everywhere is the 'field of battle'. What would you do if you were targeted by your government considering all of these facts? Where would Awlaki's son have been safe?

There is little control over the country outside of the presidental palaces. I live in a town that is not much of an Al Queada base of operations, so I don't worry too much about being caught in a cross fire. If I was involved in a war with my own country I'm pretty sure I'd get a knock on the door by an FBI agent, as opposed to intersecting a hellfire missile on the way to Trader Joe's. That is because I live in an area where a law enforcement officer can apprehend me, and bring me to trial. An avowed warrior against U.S. operating in a tribal area can not be interviewed or apprehended in a normal manner.

Awlaki's son would be alive if he was left to live in the U.S., instead of brought to a battlefield.

both Awlaki and his son and the others. It was on orders from the US Government. They were targeted and assassinated. No crossfire, no shooting war. Unless you buy Bush's claims that the whole world is a field of battle, thereby giving the US the right to kill anyone anywhere. I do not know about you, but no one I know on the left ever bought that and viewed it as gross violation of the Constitution. He is not a king, or so we are told often, when the issues are about other policies. Now, the claim is he does have the rights of a king.

If Awlaki was a threat to the US where is the evidence? What exactly was he planning that was such a threat to the US? Why was he not charged with these crimes? Bin Laden was charged with the Embassy bombings. Why no charges for Awlaki?

Yemen is as much of the equivalent of the "wild wild west" as the Tombstone area of Doc Holiday's era. A terrorist combatant's area of operation is a battle field if it is out of an area of operations that U.S domestic security forces can normally operate. That makes it a military operation, with military methods. A military target is a military target. It is a valid target, whether it's a railhead, or an operational architect.

If he was guilty of the things you claim, he should have been apprehended and given a trial.

As near as I can figure, he was guilty of running his mouth, and not much more.

You give up your fucking rights way too easily. I won't.

Obama is proving himself to be a right-wing fascist. He has no right to order the murder of US citizens, no matter what sort of bullshit spin he puts on it.

Honestly do you think that an FBI agent could saunter up and slap cuffs on Ibrahim? Please answer this question.

If you think that was possible, then how many domestically trained federal agents would required to arrest a target in a hostile tribal area against al-Qaeda operatives? Would you volunteer to tap the men and women to be sent there on the shoulder, looking them in the eye and send them there to do a job that they are not trained or equipped to do? I honestly don't think so, simply because I am certain you don't want anyone's life to simply be thrown away.

"As near as I can figure, he was guilty of running his mouth, and not much more."

Not to be rude but as near as you could figure, would get a lot of people killed who would try to arrest al-Banna, and it would not be for simply running his mouth.

You also seem to think I would eagerly toss away my consitutional rights, I would not easily, not passively, not at all.

The issue this thread highlights is that we are in a conflict that is a modern hybrid of mankind's truly oldest profession, war.

EO's, the patriot acts, misguided though they might be are a responce to the nebulous conflict we find ourselves involved in. Wishing it to go away won't work. What we are doing to counteract external aggression is far from ideal, but it is better then ignoring committed, dedicated groups and individuals that want to harm us.

The primary goal of war is to win a political battle by being a credible threat to, or that failing, killing as many of the oppositions assets as possible, in the most efficent way possible. It sucks, but it is the reality of the world that we live in.

My president is not a fascist. He wasn't one when the freepers, and baggers called him that, and he still isn't one dispite your opinion.

Peace, it is the perferred option, but failing that, fuck em'.

a battlefield. Which is now what we are told. Which means that it would not have mattered where the father took his son, there was nowhere on earth he could have taken him to be safe from his own government. Are you okay with this, really?

And since when are children to blame for where their parents take them to live? What if the US Govt, which now has assumed the power to do so, uses these extraordinary powers for political purposes and orders the DP to rid itself of a political opponent without charges or trial or conviction? That is now possible. And since the US has declared the entire world to be the battlefield in this great WOT, where would you suggest such a person place their families to make sure they are not also killed? Where in the world could that teenager have gone to be safe from this Government?

As the OP asks, 'where is the outrage'. Anyone who refuses to see the dangers in these policies, although they did appear to see them when Bush was proposing them, is either extremely trusting of their Government and both Political Parties, or has been blinded to the dangerous potential of ever giving such powers to one branch of government, or worse, to one man or woman.

The oath of office and of military personnel requires all of them to swear to protect the US Constitution, not any political party, not any President, not even any citizen or citizens, from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Why do you think the oath focuses on the Constitution rather than the country or citizens?

No matter how much you may want to disassociate yourself from a battle occuring far from you, it exits anyway.
Yemen an important base of operations for groups under the umbrella name of Al Queda whether you acknowledge it or not.

Parents are responsible if they are waging war against the U.S. and bring those children to their area of operations. Plus if this child is the same age as other combatants it is not a stretch that he could be targeted if he associates with know or suspected combatants. The child was brought anyway. Do you really think that he was there to visit the Yemeni version of Disneyland?

How do you think that say the landing at Omaha Beach would have gone if we had a U.S. Attorney file indictments against all know and unknown combatants deployed against an invasion?

The potential for abuse of the Patriot Act IS tremendous, but President Obama is not targeting his politcial opponents. Powers allotted to executive branch is OUR issue. Battlefield decisions are military decisions that are made in fluid situations, always through "the fog of war". You may or may not believe that the people who make those decisions are callous bloodthirsty individuals, but the reality is that they have been charged to protect the interests of the U.S., and they honestly try their very best to carry out their duties.

This person brought his family along with him to conduct operations against the U.S. it's military and it's citizens. He did not take his kid to visit the Yemeni version of Disneyland, and BTW Yemeni versions of Goofy, Donald, and Mickey were not at a night time "BBQ" with the child That group was targeted for a reason. The military personnel who were involved on the strike that killed that boy did so thinking that that group was a threat to U.S., it's military, and people.

I think it sucks that anyone is killed, but it is better they die for what they believe, then me and mine die for what those individuals believe.

gross violation of the laws that govern this nation, you have offered not a shred of proof that any of them are true.

Wrt Yemen, as I pointed out, the US Government claims that the whole world is a 'theater of war' in the WOT. So where in the world can someone who has been targeted by this government, bring their children?

The problem is we have only the word of the Government on all of this. There never were charges, there are only accusations. This is not how a civilized country behaves.

Btw, did you support Bush when he made these claims also? Just curious because all I recall from the Bush years when he claimed these extraordinary powers, was outrage from the entire Left and most Civil Liberties Organizations. Was Bush right after all?

Can you really expect to deal with people who are trying to attact U.S. citizens, and military the same way a meth ring is delt with? I don't care how much a Pollyanna view of the world you may have, do you really think that people actively trying to kill Americans will respond to a subpoena, really?

You are right to be concerned with the burden of proof, but that is left to the military, and intellegence agencies. Do you think those people take a careless cavalier approch to their duties? I used to do "tactical intellegence" and every single person including myself knew that if we waisted assets on a non threat, meant a true theat went unchallenged. That would get your shipmates, if not your own self, killed. So yes I do trust them making those decisions.

I did not then, nor I do now support any president having the power to declare a citizen an enemy, but that is the reality we face. Asymmetrcal warfare does not fit in a civil rights methodology of rights of suspects, evidentiary procedure, and even the ability to bring them to trial. You can not help someone to prove their own innocence while they are evading you, and trying to kill you.

If you believe that the men and women charged with protecting the U.S. and it's interests are randomly killing innocents, there is nothing in this world or the next that will satisfy your burden of proof.

By the way, once war starts no nation, kingdom, or church is "civilized". That's why it is called war.

it *exits* anyway."

One can only hope.

Where is the evidence? Where is the trial?

You got anything to support that? Hello?

The group he as with are not "criminals" in a domestic sense, but military targets, and were targeted for a reason. My evidence supporting that is that they were fired upon. To me that is pretty conclusive.

You do realize that SADDAM HUSSEIN and IRAQ was invaded because of WMD's that he didn't even have... right? Do I need to mention the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident that turned the Vietnam War into the hellish mess we remember it as now?

Come on, really, there's plenty of warnings in history that one does not just simply believe the official story "because they were fired upon".

My confidence in their judgement is that they pulled the trigger. They are professionals, and that is what we pay them to do.

The strike targeted members of al Qaeda leaving a meeting. The primary was a man named Ibrahim al-Banna, who was considered a high value target. al-Awlaki's son was traveling with him, the poor innocent was probably just trying to get an interview for his high school newspaper..

Since you don't think that the people tasked with the duty to persue the battle are competent to identify a combatant, here is an excerpt from the story as it appeared on al jazeera.com, not a bad news source on issues pertaining to the middle east.

>>>>

The media chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been killed along with eight other people in an air strike in southern Yemen, according to the Yemeni defence ministry.

The ministry said in a statement on Saturday that Egyptian-born Ibrahim al-Banna was killed on Friday night in Shabwa province.

Security officials said the air strike was among five that targeted al-Qaeda positions in Shabwa.

The statement added that al-Banna was wanted "internationally" for "planning attacks both inside and outside Yemen.

"He was one of the group's most dangerous operatives," it said.

The first strike late Friday targeted a house in the Azan district of Shabwa, but hit just after al-Qaeda fighters had a meeting in the building, security officials and tribal elders said.

They said a second strike then targeted two sport utility vehicles in which al-Banna was traveling along with several others, destroying the vehicles and leaving the men's bodies charred.

It was not clear whether other participants in the meeting were targeted in separate strikes.

>>>>

Here's the link:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101564019722483.html

BTW; Yes I do know the rational for Gulf II, and the Gulf of Tonkin. I served in the Persian Gulf, I had uncles and cousins in Gulf II, Gulf I, Vietnam, Korea, Grand parents in WWII and Korea. No one in my family including myself is pro war, but I do believe in those that are sent to battle in our name, whether we want them there or not.

Here is an old picture of me at a candle light protest during Gulf II

[IMG][/IMG]

Some of the people who stood with all of us

[IMG][/IMG]

2) No, I do not support any kind of kill on sight order that involves shooting at someone who is not shooting at you.

The crime you are describing is conspiracy to wage war against America and conspiracies warrant arrests and trials. Is this or is this not true? I want an answer to that.

If the suspect resists arrest then lethal force may be justified. Is this or is this not true? I want an answer to that.

There is no law that allows for gunning down a suspect without even the attempt at an arrest. I absolutely demand that you show me this law. I demand it.

We even tried Saddam Hussein before he was killed.

You'd be surprised on how much trust is earned by working with dedicated, motivated, and highly trained individuals.

Saddam was arrested. By that time roughly a trillion dollars were spent, or commited to that conflict, and several hundred U.S. and 10's of thousands Iraqi's lives were lost. Saddam lost his life to show trial, in a revenge killing, to his political opponents. Putting aside the merits of that war, was the trial worth it?

I will answer your question, yes I think the preferential outcome would have been that Ibrahim al-Banna would have been brought to trial. Now please answer my question. How many U.S. military personnel would be the accepted number killed to have that trial? Please factor in the amount of al-Qaeda personnel, not forgetting the collateral deaths that are part and parcel of a military operation?

Yes, a suspect resisting arrest with lethal force should be met with lethal force. I guess we could countering armed resistance by tickling the suspect as he or she squeezed off rounds, but I suspect it would be difficult to round up volunteers for that operation.

I will concede that there is no law that allows for gunning down a suspect without attempting an arrest. Will you concede that a avowed terrorist (self avowed mind you) well armed and operating in a hostile enviroment is a little different then say some poor schmuck making an involuntary cameo appearence on "Dog the Bounty Hunter"?

Yes, Saddam's was a pathetic show trial. It mattered little versus him being killed on sight. That was a low point for everyone. He was probably put to death to prevent him from pointing out that he had no WMD's. The trial wasn't worth it because it was improperly handled.

I am not sure how many troops would be required to bring in any terrorism suspect. I would say as many as was needed to bring in the Branch Davidians? Or maybe as many were required to pacify the Native Americans, who were also branded as terrorists-er, um, savages?

I didn't say resisting arrest with lethal force shouldn't be met with lethal force. I said it may be justified. In addition, it shouldn't be justified at all in the absence of resisting arrest with lethal force. You and I can agree that al-Banna did not resist arrest with lethal force... or did he? Help me out here...

An avowed terrorist is different from someone on "Dog the Bounty Hunter". For now. We as Americans, much less a group of 12 jurors, have not been shown any evidence that al-Banna was anything more than a poor schmuck.

Yes, I know you served in that region, but I don't care. I want a jury to be shown evidence and I want a trial. Anything less leaves it wide open for ANY random person to be declared a terrorist "at war with America" at which time they can be summarily executed by an unmanned drone.

Now, I would like you to explain to me what safeguards we have left to keep someone from being labeled a terrorist for capricious reasons and then blown away by a drone.

I'll concede your lack of any knowledge on that. I know exactly how many American service personnel died killing al-Banna, zero.

It is obvious you don't care about anyone, myself included who served there, or is serving there now. That's OK, we don't serve for your approval.

al-Banna was a self avowed senior member of an organization at war with you, me, and the U.S.

Why in the world do we need to arrest him and bring him in for a trial? LOL!

When someone declares war on you, the accepted responce is to kill them on the battlefield until they decide that it is better to concede the battlefield, or they kill you (BTW the latter is the less desireable outcome).

As an Apache your playing the "savages" card was cute, ineffective and churish, but cute.

I also concede your ignorance about America's war on native Americans, too.

And because of people like you I am now sworn to fight AGAINST the use of drones and AGAINST summary executions without a trial.

And you do serve by my approval. As a voter I have a stake in deciding how our military behaves.

When a Republican designates you as an unlawful combatant without any evidence and the drones come for you, remember... I told you so.

If someone is a senior member of a hostile organization there is no question of guilt or innocence, it's a non-issue.

Tell me white-eyes, tell me about my own people. I guess us poor ignorant injun's just don't understand our own history.

[IMG][/IMG]

Photo credit: California Peggy.

History is history, no matter who it's told by.

It is a fact - native Americans were called terrorists (or worse) by foreign invaders. Either confirm this or deny it but don't play the "I am native American" card in an attempt at a "counter argument". Confirm or deny - did the invaders to America define native Americans as terrorists or worse, or did they not?

Again you told me that I am ignorant of my own people's history. Thank you for shining your light of knowledge on this poor ignorant savage Kemoshabe.

I'm not playing a card, I'm responding to a "know it all" who is utterly clueless. Terrorists is more of a 20th century idiom, and I am unfamiliar of it's use to discribe the indigenous north American population.

And they used the same arguments to justify their attacks then as is used on Al Qaeda now.

You're intentionally trying to twist this.

"He was probably put to death to prevent him from pointing out that he had no WMD's."

He was held in custody for over three years. He had no opportunity to promote his innocence? Really...?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x778541

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-05-05/news/17922655_1_saddam-hussein-fbi-memo-torture

Whatever.....


He had no WMD? Really...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq

Troops don't wear gas masks and full chem gear unless the threat is real. Trust me on this,
you don't just put the damn stuff on for fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

I guess all those people and animals just layed down and self-expired by sheer force of will, just to embarrass him. ("...was and still remains
the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.&quot

Whatever...

You can put the goal-posts down.

You do understand that your premise is completely unwound if ever in history the wrong target was fired on?

Big Brother is omnipotent, all wise, inherently good, and infailable is an extreme statement but almost exactly the same as the nonsense spouted here and the exact sort of thoughtless excuse making that will allow about any level of abuse. There is no end to the potential overreach that such a logic essentially endorses.

The statement is anti-western civilization and a distortion of the rule of law. Fucking disgusting, contemptable, and immoral. A statement that any level of criminal wickedness and death is acceptable to maintain your shit for brains illusion of security, even as you encourage more zealots into existence.

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2012, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Wrong targets are always a part of warfare, it does not invalidate the need to defend one's self, has an indivdual, or a nation. We are not discussing some theoretical criminal trial to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual, or group of individuals.

They are self declaired enemies, not some innocents swept up for a general trial. Big brother is not the same as military personnel tasked with identifying, then neutralizing enemy targets.

I make no argument that giving anyone the ablility to kill U.S. citizens without trial is a disaster waiting to happen. Again in this thread I will state that the solution to that is our (as civilians) task to rectify.

You state that my statement among other things "fucking disgusting, contemptable, immoral, and my favorite "shit for brains".

A Fulbrite scholar I'm not, and yes in my youth I may have bedded a few women I did not love, but I am pretty sure that the availble CAT scans I've undergone would not find fecal matter in my cranium, nor am I a callous degenerate.

What I am, is an individual that is aware that my country is in a conflict with individuals and groups that would kill as many of us as they can if given the oppertunity. We are trying to find our way in a type of war in which the lines are at best blurred.

War never changes, it sucks, but it sucks even more to lose one.

really believe what you wrote there. If you do believe that guilt is determined by the person firing the weapon then I suggest you reassess your political leanings; if you don't, I 'd consider editing it to more truly reflect what you believe.

My 2 cents: Guilt cannot be determined by mere assumption of guilt. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Again, war is not a series of trials to determine the gulit or innocence of the enemy as individuals, or a whole. War is a horrible endevor, waistful, cruel, tragic from begining to end.

We are not attempting to put members of al-Qaeda on trial. The people who fired upon Ibriham al-Banna's vehicle were under no illusions they were mailing a summons. The military personnel involved correctly determined that a high value, ememy target was in the vehicle, and they destroyed that vehicle killing that target.

I was a little glib in stating that the fact that they fired was proof of them being a military target, but that decision was the correct battlefield decision, and my statement was snarky, but also true.

In war you do not litigate, the enemy tends to kill your lawyers.

His day job was to plan and execute suicide missions where some poor religion-obsessed teenager (not him... his leadership skills were too precious to al Queda) would use high explosives or airliners to immolate large numbers of unarmed, US civilians.
He was a US citizen in name only. He carried (dual) Yemeni citizenship, lived in Yemen and, of course, freely plied his trade there; actually facilitating two (unsuccessful, thank God) strikes on/over American soil. He used his US citizenship simply as a gimmick to allow him access in to and out of the US to facilitate his murder raids.

Legally, there was simply no "process" due him.

His Son's death was unfortunate, but accidental. Reports at the time indicated that he was ''collateral damage" in the targeted predator strike. Even with "smart" munitions, war is an ugly business and an inexact science. It's sloppy, as denbot points out.

And hey-- I'm a father too. It sucks that his son was killed, but this was Southern Yemen: an area ravaged by four years of civil war. Much of the region is controlled by al Queda operatives. It ain't Walt Disney World.

What kind of a father would bring his Son to this troubled and dangerous region?

A sociopathic murder, that's who.

Went to Guanajuato with family. My brother is not a RW troll, not even close.

So we did the city tour, if you go there highly advisable...and the guide mentioned the latest controversy. Their lovely RW government wants to remove el pipila from textbooks as myth. Mind you, this miner is central to what the city is.

So over lunch I mentioned that Texas wants to remove Jefferson from textbooks. He said, " I don't know what news you read."

I got the implication... Just the Austin Free Press and calmly explained why that story should have become national.

To quete Rhandhi Rhodes, if not on your tv, it never happened.

That is why you have no outrage.

Most Americans have no idea that this is happening. This is reduced to the ten of us who follow this crap. And that is part of the problem.

Now ask most of your neighbors about March madness, go ahead, that matters...because even POTUS is getting involved!

That is why so many of us opposed the Iraq war the first time around.

Thanks for the tip on Guanajuato. Here's where my outrage comes in: What now old Doc Luttwak said back in the day re mass media:

Control over the flow of information emanating from the political center will be our most important weapon in establishing our authority after the coup. -- Edward Luttwak, "Coup D’Etat – A Practical Hanbook," Penguin, 1968, p. 117.



Frank Church and the Abyss of Warrantless Wiretapping

Ours is the March Madness, Nanita. We know this stuff and can't forget, no matter how much we drink or how loud we turn the tee vee.

One reason that the Democrats supported the Patriot Act and other such attacks on our civil rights is because they knew, one day, that they would be back in power, and they wanted to play with all these new toys.

So now that Obama has the power, they aren't going to make a fuss, after all, this is what they wanted. This is what the leadership of both parties want, and ongoing erosion of our civil rights. And of course, it barely blips on the MSM radar because guess what, the corporations that benefit from our civil rights being violated, they own the media.

Amazing how that works.

Up next, targeted killings of US citizens on US soil, and not a peep will be made by most people.

Thanks to the data-mining unadmirable Poindexter and his TIA criminal minions across the NSA-NRO-CIA-DIA-Etc-StratforIntelforsaleComplex, it's going to be hard to get a word in edgewise.



Until then, though, we gotta keep talking: Secret Government is Un-American.

Weird, CBS no longer dates this story -- which ran on March 5, 2002, when we discovered just how little the neo-cons cared for democracy in general and Democrats in particular:

White House Casts Light On -- Shadow Government

Here's how I know the date:

Know your BFEE: The Secret Government

When We the Democrats are gone, what's left?

were not citizens, but are just as dead. This seems somehow less a problem for these authors.

child and an abducted black one.
Or the difference between a homeless VET and a homeless man/women/child.

The thing is that SOME PEOPLE want rights to be extended to only white male veterans who own land and can pass
a purity test.

that only apply by accident of birth for those hanging out with those opposed to the US in other countries. The local purse snatcher who was just as assuredly killed in I-4 last night during a law enforcement effort does not elicit the same concern. Never has and it happens every day.....

fire? Where's that come in? Anyone?

Awlaki was not an ally.

It's an appeal simultaneously to one's sense of moral indignation AND American exceptionalism.

Forgive me, but if this matters to you, it shouldn't matter who is holding what passport.

Bush years, when he claimed the right to declare anyone an 'enemy combatant' without any oversight from any other branch of government, whether those powers could one day be abused and applied to even US citizens.

Most of us objected to Bush's claims, which at that time related only to foreign 'enemies'. It did not occur to anyone at that time that there even were US citizens who were part of the equation. However, again, those of us who opposed Bush's claims regarding his powers, were demanding the same rights for those in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, despite the fact that they were not citizens.

The first time a US Citizen was arrested raised a whole new set of questions mainly because America had been assured that those powers would not extend to US Citizens.

People were concerned at the time about ANY human being's rights to a fair trial being denied. We were also concerned that once these powers were granted to one individual, they could be abused. The argument that they could be used against US citizens was made to those on the Right who argued constantly that that would never happen. I know, I spent two years arguing with them.

Some of them did become more concerned when a US Citizen was arrested and denied rights. All I could say to them then was that it was a bit late and they should have been concerned about everyone who was being denied rights.

So no, it is not only that it 'plays well', it is not even a new issue.

Did you support Bush when he denied the rights of the detainees at Guantanamo? And did you further support him and Rumsfeld when they claimed they could also deny the rights of a US Citizen based on the President's decision alone?

You are talking as if this is new so I do not know what your position was on Bush. Was he right after all and we were just opposing him for political reasons? I know that is not why I opposed him, and why I still oppose those policies. But if you supported him then at least your position would be consistent.

This may be news to you, but Americans were arrested on terror charges before September 2001. Shot at as well, and killed. Cruise missiles instead of drones, but it happened. Even before the Patriot Act.

There are many well-documented examples of American-born jihadists who took up arms against US forces, and those of our allies, long before 2001. And many of them were also killed in far-flung places, and without trials -- not killed by drones, but by cruise missiles, bombs, and just plain old bullets. Were they targeted? Oh, yes.

Did you care then? Did you rail against Clinton when he did it? How about Reagan? Carter?

More to the point: can you explain why the life of an American asshole smuggling weapons in a truck in Somalia is more precious than that of the Eritrean asshole in the seat next to him?

I'm not really expecting an answer. But I do predict a lengthy response.

reading your lengthy responses as I assume the best of people rather than the worst, until they prove me wrong. I assume you were making a good faith effort to engage in an honest discussion. Clearly you have decided not to give me the same respect. I will keep that in mind in the future, now that you've made yourself clear.

I have detected in your responses to me and a few other DUers a certain antagonism which I find puzzling since I have had little interaction with you on DU2 or here for that matter. It is a bit, not sure what the word is but, strange, to find someone you don't really know very well who has formed an opinion, not on what you say at that particular time, but on something that is not very clear to you. Airc, you were a mod on DU2.

It would be a bit disturbing to think, and I admit I could be wrong, that there were mods who had pre-conceived ideas about members and while I never subscribed to the idea put forward by others that there was a bias towards some members, I am giving that possibility a lot more credit since DU3. A lot has become way more obvious here. I am very glad that we now have the community making decisions regarding members.

Since you have stated you do not expect an answer from me, although why you would say such a thing since I almost always answer people whenever possible, but rather a lengthy response I am giving you what you expected. No point really in trying to hold a good faith discussion about issues with someone who sees fit to attack rather than discuss as I'm sure you'll agree.

All I will say regarding the issue, (which you veered away from in order to make a derogatory and personal attack on me), you are very wrong.

I will probably write an OP on the subject as soon as I have more time.

I'll wait.

/whistles

/fidgets

/hums to himself

Ok, i'll save you some time. There aren't any. US Citizen or not doesn't matter. All people have the same due process rights when in US territory or US custody.

Oh look! These people weren't in US custody and they were in Yemen. Which means they had no US due process rights. It was up to Yemen to protect their due process rights. I can't say whether Yemen failed or not, because I don't know what Yemen's due process rights are.

And if I am not mistaken, you believe that once they leave the US to go anywhere, on vacation etc, Americans citizens lose all their rights? This is what I recall from past discussions with you, but I could be confusing you with someone else.

The example I gave before, which you completely blew over, is there's no 5th amendment-style protection in France. So an American arrested by the French in French territory has no protection against self-incrimination. In fact, if said American doesn't aid in the investigation of his own crime, he's charged with another crime.

In that conversation, you failed to mention any due process rights US Citizens had over non-citizens. As here, you leapt to "lose all rights" and ramped up the righteous indignation.

So, I invite you to actually list the extra due process rights US Citizens have.

citizenship, once in the custody of any civilized nation are entitled to due process. The reason US citizens' rights alone were being discussed both here and elsewhere is because the issue at hand relates to a US Citizen.

You seem to be arguing that no one in the custody, or being pursued by the US has any rights at all. That was the claim of the Bush administration. And we on the Left warned that those claims, regarding the detainees in Guantanamo Bay eg, would be extended to US citizens, and NOW THEY HAVE.

I have no idea what your argument is. Perhaps you were not around when these policies, that the Unitary Executive alone, was to be given the power to kill anyone deemed by him alone to be a threat to the US were introduced by the Bush administration.

The Bush argument was that the Gitmo detainees had no right to access the US justice system because 'they are not on US soil'. A pretty devious argument as most on the Left at least, agreed. We on the Left argued consistently that they DID have the right to access courts in the US, to find out what the charges against them were, to have access to legal representation etc. etc. So did many Constitutional Lawyers.

So what is your point? The Left ALWAYS argued for the rights of ALL detainees or targets of the US Government regardless of their citizenship.

Now the issue is a Democratic Administration has adapted these draconian policies rather than change them and restore the rule of law AND have even gone further by ordering the assassinations of even US Citizens.

The Geneva Conventions are clear. The Constitution is clear. Bush's 'new laws' are a hoax and merely an excuse to kill people without having to explain it to anyone, using 'national security' as the reason for not revealing charges or evidence.

US Citizens. It's clear someone sent out that memo. How do we recognize talking points? They are repeated over and over again by people trying to defend the indefensible. The problem with that is, of course, that the record shows that it was the Right who cared only about US Citizens, believing back then, what Bush lied to them about, that these laws would never affect US Citizens. Of course you would have to have been there to know this.

You chose to ignore certain points made by me, not my problem of course but for those who might bother to read the thread, this is for them, the parts you ignored:

Me to you:

"National Man of Mystery"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1650562&mesg_id=1650562

"April 2010: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1652455&mesg_id=1652455

"You shouldn't lock a thread just because you disagree with Obama's policies"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=3870&mesg_id=3870

one former mod is in this thread rah rahing the killing, so that's not a huge surprise.

Is my guess?

Maybe not now?

I have no problem with killing an enemy combatant when he's openly threatening the United States in a war. As far as I'm concerned, they've lost their rights as an American when they declare war on America.

The problem is that this sets a very, very dangerous legal precedent. We're not going to have Obamas forever. Eventually a nutbag like Newt Gingrich will be Commander-in-Chief (whether that's next year or 20 years from now), and the precedent is there for the legalized killing of American citizens. That scares me. Anyone who's declared an enemy combatant can be killed now, and depending on who's defining what that means, that can end very badly.

Civil liberties is the one area in which I'm truly disappointed with Obama. In most areas, I think he's done very well, but here he had complete control to change the Bush-era policy on civil liberties, but he chose to continue, and even strengthen them (with the end of torture being the one very notable exception).

you are not the Constitution.

If Obama does it, you're OK with it???!!!!

Just WOW.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2012, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe you, Tx4obama, and I are not on the same side politically if I'm "getting" your post. I use OUR constitutional rights and am certainly for communicating the truth, as is the OP -unlike the captive MSM (no longer the Fourth Estate, a NECESSARY branch of DEMOCRACY and RULE OF LAW) I agree about MSM BS-IT"S JUST A PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT TOOL for TPTB, and letting the traitors and criminal leadership of the BFEE free to solidify their privatized empire (1%ers).

Nothing personal, just a thought from a WISCONSIN ACTIVIST that has immense respect for Octafish's contributions to this website and his giving a damn.

No personal outrage, outrage is where I'm at when it come to our post-WikiLeaks world as discussed/dismissed by other members besides yourself here at DU-a place I don't get to very often anymore, since I'm a volunteer for a former USAF veteran running as the WI Democratic Party candidate for the Wisconsin 96th Assembly seat, Tom Johnson. I was a volunteer WALKER RECALL petition circulator. I'm on that side. Corporations are not people-I'm OUTRAGED at that ATTACK on US 99%ers too.

.

You are willing to give up all your rights at the drop of the word "terrorist".

How will you spin it when the fascist fuckers running the US government decide that posting on a liberal message board makes one a terrorist? Yeah, I know..it can't happen here.

Wake the fuck up!

from posting on DU.

It would be nice if folks spent more time thinking about our military men and women that the terrorists have killed
instead of shedding tears for the folks that got killed while hanging out with the terrorists and the terrorists.

military men and women than the terrorists have killed
instead of shedding tears for the folks that got killed while hanging out with the terrorists and the terrorists."

Well said.

and considered a good argument in the context of this thread, then American exceptionalism trumps every time there is a debate along these lines.

Feh.

If we're, I mean any of us, are under 18 I believe it is in the U.S., though it varies some from place to place, we have not reached the age of legal responsibility. In most ways we are under the legal control of another, typically a parent, with schools normally being a big sharer of control and authority. That time of our lives is also much like being a hostage, and we are dragged around and told what to do, and how high to jump, and if we don't do so, we usually get punished (could be mild or severe, but the point is we get corrected). Unfortunately, this doesn't mean we want to be doing any of what we're told to do, merely that we are legally forced to do so.

I guess I have a problem with a kid being killed for something a parent is alleged to have done. The law seems to have ascribed authority to a parent, and then the government kills a kid for what the parent has done? Seems a bit more unjust than unfair. The law says the parent takes legal responsibility for the kid, but then the government is forcing responsibility on the kid by killing kid when it suits governments purposes.

If kids can be killed, then at the very least shouldn't they first have legal rights to make their own decisions and be fully responsible for themselves?


Sorry, not lucid right now.

Perhaps the drone operators or whoever is giving the orders are a little too quick on the trigger. I believe they are.

Bush's collateral damage in dead civilians was bad. Obama's is just fine. Give me a fucking break.

are only supposed to kill a single person?

Guy's in Yemen. Arrest isn't an option because we're not Yemeni police. So boom.

-29-2011)
http://www.truth-out.org/contractors-role-grows-drone-missions-worrying-some-military/1325271287

The OP also has many archived threads about some of the criminal companies "hired" as CIA and DoD contractors (including psychotic wetwork mercenaries).

and knockout gas. Then they could bring these guys in for trial.

Knock out gas incapacitates the driver and he drives into a pole or over a cliff and the passengers and driver die. The outrage for some here would be the same.

Denbot said

Will you oppose this targeting for those who there is no such public record? Will you at least make in accomodation in your thought process for a few important things like we are not only talking about this one target but a much broader program where it would be fair to say are far less famous with little trail, that the "battlefield" is global and that in probably the super majority or greater cases the "battlefield" is no such thing in anything remotely similar to how it tends to immediatly come to mind with little in the way of shooting back and forth on any level, that there is no state, little if any objectives that can be taken, the enemy has no uniform or flag, has no government to swear alligence to or that can be broken, and in general and logically that the certainty of who is the enemy is or why you have been attacked because the background noise is so intense once you are at war with ideologies and worse tactics.

I'd also add that the enemy is not an existential threat. Some argue otherwise but the arguments lean heavily toward delusional and certainly to the highly speculative.

They have no satellites, no navy, no airforce, no credible military, nary a tank, and by even the most generous assessments no numbers to have the scale to be more than a contextual annoyance with their greatest success and typically pissing into the wind.
I think too many watched a few episodes of 24 after living in some trance that built the illusion of being magically untouchable by activity that happens around the world, even in Europe enough that folks don't start believing in magic protection fields powered by exceptionalisim.

Terrorisim is a tactic and a generally applied one (please don't dare pretend we don't utilize it, what the hell would "Shock and Awe" be, especially when we are the aggressor?). The scale being small enough, participated in by those without state or title doesn't make it some unfathonable and ultimate threat.

This entire notion is no less absurd with a cool as a cucumber professor mouthing the nonsense than it was with the dry drunk cowboy from the northeast via Texas. The margin of error is high and the potential for abuse extreme and unchecked by design.
The "damn the torpedos", "let God sort em out", and by all means the insane level of self justifying "if we are shooting at them"/"if they got arrested for ____" they must be guilty" logic is orders of magnitude a greater threat due to rot from within and at the root of our society than a handful of extremist hiding in holes spread around the globe.

Lets say that plots and organizing schemes to kill US citizens by flying more planes into buildings (because the first time around was very successful in not only killing thousands, but throwing millions into financial failures), has been clearly and publically stated.

I do believe that is reason enough to target a handful of terrorist extremists and a handful of terrorist extremists is all that is being targeted..........especiallt when they are public with their killing desires, and already have a proven track record for implementing such desires.

Al Q methodolgy of terrorism doesn't need satellites, tanks or own military planes for the types of operations they have come to embrace and promote. Those types of terrorists don't work by having fixed operational equipment on a military scale. Doesn't fit with the nomadic requirements of the hunted.

That was my point in the section you went after. I didn't assert that there was no threat at all, just not one to our existence as a nation posed by the threat.

The FBI can't just stroll into Yemen and arrest someone. They don't have the power to arrest anyone in Yemen. Nor does the military. So your proposed trial would last about a day or two and then the defendant would be released.

US Citizens don't have any special due process rights. Everyone in the US has the same due process rights, even if they are in the country illegally.

Perhaps when people stop harping on "US Citizen!!" they'll notice the targets they're complaining about aren't in the US.

concern? I asked this before, but don't recall a response from you. Were you around when Bush was pushing these policies and when at the time, the victims of his policies were NOT US Citizens? Are you aware that Democrats almost unanimously during those years, demanded due process for all detainees in US Custody at the time?

Why do you continue to ask this question when it has been explained over and over again that the issue does not just pertain to US Citizens, but that NOW, US Citizens have been subjected to the same policies we objected for Foreign people accused of being terrorists by the US Government?

I do not know how to make it any clearer, but you continually repeat this as if no one ever explained it to you before.

The OP makes an enormous deal about the death of an alleged terrorist because he was a US Citizens.

My point: US Citizens do not have any special due process protections under our legal system. Ergo, the "US Citizen" canard is meaningless. He had exactly the same US due process rights as any other human being.

Your point: But now a US Citizen is getting killed!!!!1!!1!!!

So....did you not read my post at all? Did I somehow phrase it poorly? Are you assuming I'm all super-gung-ho for killing people and I'm trying to come up with excuses?

Bottom line: My problems involve what we can do to avoid executive branch abuse of the power they've been given to kill anyone overseas. US Citizen or not. Democratic president or not. I'm not very comfortable without another branch of government evaluating the cases, yet at the same time I can't come up with a reasonable framework to do so.

of responding ever again. By sentence #2 it's abundantly clear you didn't even bother to read.

Good job throwing away allies!

It's time to set things straight once and for all.

When Our President orders the assassination of anyone, anywhere, it is the right thing to do and anyone who questions him should be frog marched into the nearest People's Court.
To question Our President is treason, and must be treated as such.
Do you think Roosevelt would have allowed anyone to question Him? What about Truman? Do you really believe he would have let you whine about his use of nuclear weapons against Japan?
NO! He would Not! And had anyone done so they would be rightfully be tied to a stake, blindfolded, given a cigarette, and well....
You know.
There IS a difference between we enlightened, intelligent, and caring Liberals, and the dumb, stupid, greedy rich guys of the right who worship fat whitey and senile old codgers like ronald raygun.
If we want Smart Liberal Progressiveness to succeed we must harden our hearts and toughen up. Who do you want to tell you what you can feed your kids, Dick Cheney or Michelle Obama? Who do you want to tell our Armed Forces when and where the must go to war, Mit Romney, or the nations of NATO? Who do you want to protect our Mother Earth from certain destruction, Newt Gingrich or the United Nations?
We must realize what is at stake and fight with every weapon we have. Our President has tried to save the nation by infusing tax dollars he had to borrow from our great, great grandchildren into the corporations that support him, yet he has been ruthlessly attacked by the NEOCONS! Nancy Pelosi warned us that these people want to destroy Mother Earth and kill women. Because of the NEOCONS, many of the Green corporations making planet saving cars like the "Volt" and solar panels suffered attacks from right wing wacko propaganda rags like Popular Mechanics and Consumer Reports. Why, many of these brave corporations had to use the tax payer dollars that Our President worked so hard to give them to flee the country in order to survive! Despite our Courageous Attorney General Eric Holder doing all he can to help, some of the corporations are being forced to defend themselves in court on charges of Fraud!
So it's time to stand up and be counted! Take a moment to consider the alternatives, and Always support Our President and his Appointees at any cost and on any issue. If you have any problems with it, just shut up and keep them to yourself.
We must be United behind Our Leader at all costs!

Fuhrerprinzip Wiki entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrerprinzip

when we Army Ants march -
we march as one;
with fire and sword,
and God and gun;
we're blind as bats,
we're the sons of the Hun.
when our dear Leader calls -
we're all 'tenshun!.

Thanks for the thread, Octafish.

And I am outraged.

http://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/tag/joel-shrun/

What also makes me angry: Allowing the cretinous warmongering ghouls, who profit off the wars they lied America into startint, to remain free and unpunished by law.

equipment, go on "ride-a-longs" on patrol with law, etc.