HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Drones... explain to me h...

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:56 PM

Drones... explain to me how extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists...

...doesn't extend to future Occupy, environmental, or labor protesters that some POTUS decides to declare "TERRORISTS"?

We already know that Occupy and environmental groups have been treated as such and labelled as terrorists by some.



45 replies, 1959 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Drones... explain to me how extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists... (Original post)
tk2kewl Feb 2013 OP
Vincardog Feb 2013 #1
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #2
Vincardog Feb 2013 #5
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #6
Vincardog Feb 2013 #10
gholtron Feb 2013 #17
Flying Squirrel Feb 2013 #38
Vincardog Feb 2013 #39
Flying Squirrel Feb 2013 #43
Vincardog Feb 2013 #44
randome Feb 2013 #3
tk2kewl Feb 2013 #11
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #37
Catherina Feb 2013 #4
green for victory Feb 2013 #23
Catherina Feb 2013 #40
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #29
Catherina Feb 2013 #41
woo me with science Feb 2013 #33
Catherina Feb 2013 #42
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #7
randome Feb 2013 #8
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #14
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #16
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #18
woo me with science Feb 2013 #25
kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #34
datasuspect Feb 2013 #9
arely staircase Feb 2013 #31
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #12
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #15
jeff47 Feb 2013 #13
tk2kewl Feb 2013 #20
leftstreet Feb 2013 #21
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #19
leftstreet Feb 2013 #22
ecstatic Feb 2013 #24
tk2kewl Feb 2013 #26
DevonRex Feb 2013 #27
tk2kewl Feb 2013 #28
arely staircase Feb 2013 #30
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #32
dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #35
WillyT Feb 2013 #36
hughee99 Feb 2013 #45

Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:59 PM

1. It does. Witness the Administration's targeted killings of reporters doctors or anyone counting

the civilian deaths in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:00 PM

2. Evidence for this claim please. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:09 PM

5. Try this link:

link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/04/iraq.usa|


Do you also want proof the US sanctions killing Union organizers in Columbia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:10 PM

6. If you are claiming that as well - and i don't see a link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:16 PM

10. Try it now and this one:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:44 PM

17. That article was written in 2004 just so you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:15 AM

38. You should edit that post to say "Bush Administration"

Since the only evidence you presented was from 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flying Squirrel (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:55 PM

39. The question at hand is "does extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists

Portend future actions against (Occupy, Trade unionists, anyone deemed to be an enemy)" My answer illustrates that this has ALREADY happened the past is prolog.

So YES this policy paves the way for future drone attacks on peaceful civilian exercising their rights to protest FASCIST actions and policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:31 PM

43. I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point, but

still think "the Administration" is misleading and should be edited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flying Squirrel (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:26 PM

44. Considering that the Obama Administration has continued all the worse claimed powers

of bush the Lessor's Administration; as well as claimed more worse powers, I will let it stand.

PBO rewarded the architects of the failed wars and war policies with cabinet and high post positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:03 PM

3. Really? You think the President will start a civil war over people occupying public parks?

:snore:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:17 PM

11. i said future

This POTUS didn't mind a few bashed heads... who knows what the next POTUS might not mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:33 PM

37. That's incentive to be careful about who we elect

...and if it came down to it, I think there's plenty of precedent around the world and through history for laws being ignored by tyrants and asshats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:08 PM

4. Don't forget Animal Activists, Environmental activists, supporters of Palestine etc

The elite's definition of terrorism is quite extended and vague.


As Chunkymark put it "Define Terrorism you Imperialist Fucks"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:23 PM

23. thanks for posting that video

 



when he got angry he reminded me that I was indeed alive

The more I know the Brits (despite their own little adventure into Empire!) the more I love them. And their TV is simply brilliant. Makes US TV look like the crap it really is.

link for Brit TV on your laptop:
http://tvpc.com/ChannelList.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:04 PM

40. I listen to him daily, over and over. Here's another

&list=UUGThM-ZZBba1Zl9rU-XeR-A

Thanks very much for the link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:58 PM

29. Epic rant! Lots of truth there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:07 PM

41. All his rants are great

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:03 PM

33. Thank you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:09 PM

42. You're welcome my friend

He's worth listening to daily to offset the tripe we have to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:12 PM

7. Note that DHS and PDs consider the Occupy movement to be potential terrorists:

 

Cop strongly implies Occupy presence means increased terrorism threat; Federal agents at parade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:14 PM

8. Of course they were potential terrorists.

Since no one was in charge, anyone could use them as cover. As did the trio who were arrested for trying to blow up the...was it Cleveland?...bridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:30 PM

14. Then we're all potential terrorists by that logic.

I really can't believe this is a progressive board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:36 PM

16. It really isn't. It's a Democratic Party board with a few, and shrinking number, of progressives

 

posting. But judging by the number recs frequently received by those few, there are a fair number of progressives reading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:53 PM

18. I don't know whether that is comforting or not.

At least progressives are reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:36 PM

25. Dissent is not protected anymore.

This, to me, is the most chilling aspect of all of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:22 PM

34. But Ann Coulter is one giant step closer to happiness.

"You mean we can kill people - Americans - for 'reasons of state,' and we don't have to even say WHY, really? Just say "They were TRAITORS!" fire away and that's the end of it, legally speaking? We don't have to PROVE anything before or after? Why didn't WE think of this? Oh wait I DID think of this :"

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Ann Coulter. Conservative Political Action Conference 2002

"And now Obama wants the credit!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:15 PM

9. BINGO!

 

when the state has 100% discretion where it concerns who is and isn't a terrorist, this will be the main problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:05 PM

31. well they have always had that, who else would have it?

the question is allowing the executive branch to make that determination instead of the judical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:24 PM

12. Wait for it. "They know more than we do" justification will follow.

Or, "accidents", "unforeseeable mistakes", or (my favorite), "regrettable incident".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:32 PM

15. TATF

Terrorist After The Fact

Inquiry: "How was he a terrorist?"
Government: "Because we killed him without judicial process."

QED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:28 PM

13. They're located within US jurisdiction

where the arguments against drone strikes being legal are actually valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:05 PM

20. until some lawyer from some future DOJ writes a memo saying othewwise?

Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:11 PM

21. What are Yoo talking about?

Why are you torturing us with this enhanced interrogation?



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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:53 PM

19. Nothing to stop it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:12 PM

22. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:33 PM

24. Question: Are the US citizens on a foreign "battlefield" or in the US?

For me, it's a question of time and priorities. If the suspected terrorists are in the US, then they should definitely get a trial and due process.

If the "terrorists" just happen to be with a militant group they've joined in Syria or something, then I'm less concerned (neutral) about how things are handled. In other words, they aren't my top priority when it comes to figuring out the top issues affecting our lives.

Once we address the hundreds/thousands of more pressing domestic issues, then we can address how American-born AlQaida members are treated once captured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:38 PM

26. that is a good question

My concern is that we have had, for over a decade, an executive branch defining these circumstances as they see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:44 PM

27. Oh good god. Seriously?

That's straight up ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:49 PM

28. so far that's the best answer anyone has given

to my question.

Funny how those who don't agree don't bother to provide any argument for their case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:02 PM

30. the good will of the people making the decisions

ain't much i know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:09 PM

32. They are not classified as unlawful combatants, the defining criteria

Precedent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0001_ZS.html

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 37.


Legislation: Public Law 107 - 40

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:21 PM

35. This is a very important question

and I'm pretty sure I don't like the answer. Excellent OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:23 PM

36. Great Question...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:31 PM

45. It doesn't because no one has yet written a memo to explain why it's okay.

At least not that we're aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread