HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why can't you let people ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:49 PM

Why can't you let people on the kill list defend themselves or at least surrender?

... asked Sen. Wyden (D-Oregon) at today's confirmation hearing.

Brennan: Once you're on the kill list, you lose the right to surrender.

(See here, 10:43, just before the jokes about waterboarding.)

How Orwellian can you get? In other words:

Government: You're a terrorist. Prepare to die.
Citizen: Wait, I'm not a terrorist! Don't I get a trial?
Government: You gave up the right to a trial when you became a terrorist. Smile for the missile.

89 replies, 4290 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 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why can't you let people on the kill list defend themselves or at least surrender? (Original post)
BlueCheese Feb 2013 OP
Taverner Feb 2013 #1
still_one Feb 2013 #2
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #3
2on2u Feb 2013 #9
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #19
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #23
tama Feb 2013 #88
Hillary2016 Feb 2013 #34
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #81
tama Feb 2013 #87
Gidney N Cloyd Feb 2013 #4
Art_from_Ark Feb 2013 #5
Kablooie Feb 2013 #57
Recursion Feb 2013 #66
tama Feb 2013 #89
2on2u Feb 2013 #6
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #7
Journeyman Feb 2013 #8
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #12
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #10
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #13
Recursion Feb 2013 #17
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #27
Recursion Feb 2013 #35
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #44
Recursion Feb 2013 #47
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #51
Recursion Feb 2013 #55
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #25
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #16
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #30
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #32
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #42
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #48
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #60
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #61
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #63
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #18
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #37
dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #53
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #68
dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #72
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #74
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #56
840high Feb 2013 #69
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #71
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #11
Recursion Feb 2013 #14
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #22
Recursion Feb 2013 #24
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #28
Recursion Feb 2013 #36
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #39
Recursion Feb 2013 #41
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #15
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #21
ProSense Feb 2013 #20
Recursion Feb 2013 #26
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #29
ProSense Feb 2013 #46
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #49
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #58
baldguy Feb 2013 #31
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #33
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #50
BlueCheese Feb 2013 #52
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #54
bighart Feb 2013 #84
baldguy Feb 2013 #62
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #40
Recursion Feb 2013 #43
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #45
WillyT Feb 2013 #38
neverforget Feb 2013 #59
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #64
obxhead Feb 2013 #65
Swede Atlanta Feb 2013 #67
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #70
randome Feb 2013 #80
Herlong Feb 2013 #73
Coyotl Feb 2013 #75
Herlong Feb 2013 #76
Smilo Feb 2013 #77
limpyhobbler Feb 2013 #78
MNBrewer Feb 2013 #79
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #82
bighart Feb 2013 #85
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #86
CrispyQ Feb 2013 #83

Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:49 PM

1. Amen Sen Wyden

 

Amen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:51 PM

2. Should they have done that with bin laden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:52 PM

3. Obviously not.

But we're talking about American citizens not formally accused of any crimes here. Traditionally, we've had certain constitutional rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:59 PM

9. Gee when you think about it, people who take up assault rifles aod go on a spree are equal or

 

greater than a terrorist.... so I can see why we will need armed drones flying overhead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:05 PM

19. These American citizens have joined forces with our enemy and are participating

in war against us. If they don't like the consequences of their bad behavior, that's just too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:09 PM

23. Again, you're using the fact that someone is targeted as proof of his guilt.

Isn't that circular reasoning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:15 PM

88. Not at all

 

If kestrel get's killed/arrested/beaten by a cop or just by anybody, it's obvious he was guilty and accepts his punishment. He's not asking Magna Charta rights for himself and knows that King Obama can't be wrong as he is vehicle of divine justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:17 PM

34. Your little PEACE thingy

 

doesn't go with your comments, dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hillary2016 (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:56 AM

81. war is peace

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:10 PM

87. Which Americans are you talking about

 

DUers who support bogus War on Terror and murdering our children in Pakistan and elsewhere?

See? It's just a game of identities, all that "us" against "them", and taking side of some "us" in that game you make yourself "them" and "enemy" to the other "us".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:55 PM

4. Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:55 PM

5. Well, gee, bin Laden was supposedly unarmed when found

How hard would it have been to capture him alive and transport him someplace for a trial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:57 PM

57. The assignment was to capture Bin Laden alive if possible.

They didn't expect that to be very likely but it was the first objective of the mission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:27 PM

66. wink wink

"alive if possible"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:21 PM

89. Of course

 

So why didn't they?

Bin Laden - Bush family connections, Osama's CIA history etc. etc. is not something the establishment enjoys discussing publicly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:56 PM

6. Why couldn't a drone just taze the alleged american gone awry.... they would surely mend

 

their ways after being tazed a time or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:57 PM

7. Because doing such things would make us look like civilized wusses instead of badasses.

Not to mention that the victims of our "justice" might be found innocent by a jury and that would be soooooo embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:57 PM

8. More "Catch-22" than Orwell. . .

Doc Daneeka was adamant.

"What makes you so sure Major Major is a communist?"

"Well, you never heard him denying it until we started accusing him, did you? And he won't sign any of our Loyalty Oaths."

"But you're not letting him sign any."

"Of course not," Captain Black replied. "That would defeat the whole purpose of our Crusade."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:01 PM

12. Yes, I thought of using Catch 22 instead.

It probably fits this situation better. That book was more black comedy than tragedy, however, so I wasn't sure about it for this case.

Orwellian probably better fits saying an "imminent threat" doesn't have to be planning something in the "immediate future".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:00 PM

10. You act like these "Americans" are just Bob and June from up the street on vacation.

 

These are people that have deliberately gone overseas to join up with al-Queada. If you go over there and hang out with terrorists you end up on this list. It's not like they are just randomly targeting people or picking any American that happens to be out of the country. You have to earn your way on to this list.

These people aren't in the game to surrender, they're in it to plot attacks on this country and people.

This na´vetÚ is ridiculous. You don't fire warning shots or trumpet your intentions to these people. When they stick their heads out, you nail them. Don't give them a chance to go into hiding.

I'm sorry but terrorists get no sympathy from me wherever they originate from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:01 PM

13. And we know this... how?

Did I miss the trial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:03 PM

17. How did you know the guy in Alabama actually kidnapped the kid?

How do you know Lanza really shot up Sandy Hook?

Skepticism is one thing, conspiracy theories are another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:12 PM

27. The list is secret. The evidence is secret.

The names of the people who compile the list are secret.
The justification for the policy is secret (the white paper is not the actual justification).

Not even Congress knows these things.

Worrying that such a program might be misguided isn't buying into conspiracy theories. It's not placing blind trust in an all-powerful executive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:17 PM

35. War intel isn't "evidence". Being in Al Qaeda isn't a crime.

Or rather, even if it is a crime, that's not what's being addressed here.

I think you're making a category error here. The military is authorized to use force outside of US territory against a criminal / terrorist organization. This is not even a new thing; the Barbary Wars were a similar concept. Neither Al Qaeda nor the Barbary Corsairs published an order of battle like states do, but in both case res ipsa loquitur: if you're on the corsair, or in the Al Qaeda operations camp, you are just as subject to military action as anyone else there, despite your citizenship.

If you are captured or surrender (and remember, Al Qaeda members have surrendered, as have American citizens in the Taliban), and you're a citizen, your custody becomes a thorny issue the military and government would rather not deal with, but that's beside this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:32 PM

44. Okay, I think I understand your point.

Your argument appears to be that in circumstances resembling war, the burden of proof on the executive is considerably lowered.

What scares me is that this is a war that appears to have no end and no geographic limitations. The idea of using a state of war to justify expanded executive authority indefinitely goes against what I think of as our constitutional ideals. To me, this whole era should be treated as an era of (heightened) law enforcement. For the executive to arrogate dubious wartime powers with so few limits is frightening to me, personally. I worry that it will lead to a permanent expansion of executive power.

Would you support repealing the AUMF, with the understanding that this effectively ends the quasi-war started just after 9/11 and expanded powers like this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:34 PM

47. I would *ABSOLUTELY* support repealing the AUMF

Without hesitation. It was a mistake and I said so very loudly in 2001 (well, as loudly as I could at the time, since I was still in the military).

I worry that it will lead to a permanent expansion of executive power.

Me too, especially since this seems to have actually not been a power grab, but the pretty much unavoidable consequence of an overly-broad authorization of force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:43 PM

51. I see. I think we actually agree a fair amount.

Would it be fair to say that your position is that while the AUMF is in effect, the president does have the right to compile and implement this kill list, but that you believe the AUMF should be repealed?

My position, which you've helped me clarify, is that even with the AUMF in effect, the executive should not exercise this power. I agree that the AUMF was too vague. Given how vague it is, I feel like it should be interpreted narrowly, not broadly, though of course those in power will always choose the latter. I'm extremely disappointed that a Democratic president has decided to maximize executive authority under these circumstances.

Thank you for the discussion. It took me a while to understand what you were trying to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:49 PM

55. I don't know that I had fully articulated my thoughts either beforehand

Good discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:11 PM

25. We don't know and we're not going to know.

 

I'm pretty sure this is classified information gathered by covert agents or operatives on the inside of the organizations we're monitoring. They aren't going to make such info public.

What they aren't going to do is fly a drone down your street and bomb your house for no reason. It's not just the survivalist types that are super paranoid about the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:03 PM

16. I respectfully disagree.

My whole point is that the executive is saying that people accused of being terrorists can't argue they aren't they give up their rights because their terrorists. In other words, your presumed guilt deprives you of your chance to prove your innocence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:14 PM

30. And I explained why they can't make the information public.

 

Yeah, it kind of sucks but if you're hanging around al-Queada types and our spies notice, you're going to get it.

What non-terror related reason would Americans have for being around such people? I can't think of any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:16 PM

32. What if you weren't but our spies have you confused with someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:22 PM

42. These are not instantaneous decisions.

 

These are people that have been watched for years. Is it possible that one can merely be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely. But the spooks are generally pretty good at this sort of thing.

My advice? Don't accidentally be hanging around terrorist leaders in Yemen or Pakistan or wherever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

48. I think where you and I disagree is how much we can trust our spooks.

We've had lots of intelligence failures in the past. We were certain that Saddam had WMD, for example. We don't believe everyone the police arrests or the DA prosecutes is guilty. I'm wary of trusting a secret panel to do much better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:06 PM

60. But we weren't certain of WMD.

 

In fact, the full analysis of the information said the exact opposite. Dick Cheney cherry picked the info he wanted released and only that information got out, even to the intelligence committees. It wasn't until later that we found out the truth. Nefarious people will do nefarious things. The problem is that no one is ever held accountable.

I agree that there are failures and that you really can't trust anyone but the fact is that even though there are corrupt cops, we don't disband law enforcement. And we can't discount and dismiss all the good work these agencies do on these national security matters simply because they get it wrong occasionally.

There is also the fact that, as it's always been, if they want you, they're going to get you. This is just a new fangled method.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:10 PM

61. Thanks for the discussion.

You've helped me understand a different perspective.

I'm going to wrap up my participation in this for now. I find I get a little too worked up and perhaps get a little too aggressive. In the end, most of us share most beliefs, and I don't want to promote acrimony, even if that often seems like the purpose of the Internet.

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #61)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:15 PM

63. You're welcome.

 

It's nice to have a civilized conversation that doesn't degenerate into a flame war.

Cheers to you as well and a good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:04 PM

18. How do YOO know? YOO don't.

Due process is not sympathy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:19 PM

37. Yeah it kind of is in these instances.

 

You're giving them a heads up about what's coming and possibly ruining years of covert information gathering and blowing the cover of agents on the inside if you go public with a show trial.

Stay away from terrorist groups if you don't want to get droned. There is no good reason for any innocent person to be around them. There just isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:47 PM

53. Wow

You might want to reconsider your tag-line, way too ironic, though your handle, not so much.

Just because "there's no good reason" in your mind (or more importantly in the mind of some spook) for anyone to be in the vicinity of a "terrorist group" doesn't mean we have the right to kill that person. Far from it.

What about reporters? Merchants? Family? It's just not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:54 PM

68. Don't you think the people in charge know the players?

 

What journalist is going to be hanging around the Islamic Jihad without the ops knowing about it? What merchant is going to be at their compound or hideout or whatever without knowing who these people are? If they have American family members that just so happen to be there on the day of an operation, well that's just poor timing.

It's not really as complex as you make it out to be. Stay away from the bad guys.

I am a great fan of irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #68)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:34 PM

72. Whatever, couldn't disagree more though - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #72)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:44 PM

74. Well enough.

 

We can't all agree about everything. What fun would that be?

Have a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:51 PM

56. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:10 PM

69. How do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #69)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:15 PM

71. I've answered this already.

 

It's right above your reply to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:00 PM

11. This is fucked. Utterly fucked.

Thanks for the heads up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:02 PM

14. AQ is an organization known for strapping explosives to people

You're a Marine guard at a US consulate. Somebody on your AQ watch list approaches ostensibly to surrender. How close do you feel like letting him get?

After 9/11, I spent a lot of time saying naval laws on piracy should be the governing rules for terrorism; those laws involve a lot of summary execution and, in fact, pirates cannot "surrender" per se. The relevant doctrine is hostis humani generis; though in principle it's Congress that the Constitution grants the authority for that to. On the other hand, the authorization of force after 9/11 was so broad that I'm afraid this is pretty much within the President's rights as it is now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:07 PM

22. But the white paper claims the right to kill Americans who pose far less immediate a threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:10 PM

24. I never said the guy was involved in an active plot

I said he's been hanging out with people known to strap explosives to themselves. He's approaching the consulate you're guarding. How close do you feel like letting him get?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:13 PM

28. The white paper specifically says that citizens we kill...

... do not actually have to be planning anything in the immediate future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:18 PM

36. I never said he was planning anything in the immediate future

I said his citizenship is not a factor in the rules of engagement against him, and used a rather dramatic scenario of his approaching a consulate to illustrate that. He may not be planning to blow himself up. But what's the Lance Corporal to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:20 PM

39. In your example it's at least plausible that he's about to do something.

You order him to halt. If he doesn't, you fire a warning shot. If he continues, then sure, use lethal force. I'm not sure how that affects the discussion about the drone policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:22 PM

41. Drones are only a small component of this

And frankly I think they muddy the issue.

Could the President order an artillery barrage against a U.S. citizen's position? An infantry assault? I think in both cases, the answer would be yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:03 PM

15. This is war. This is not a police action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:06 PM

21. This strikes me as an argument frequently heard during the Bush administration.

This nebulous war that we're fighting, against no definite enemy, restricted to no geographic area, and unlimited in time, justifies all sorts of restrictions on our civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping? Indefinite detention? Execution without trial?

Are we giving the president the power to designate any US citizen a terrorist and to have that person killed in perpetuity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:05 PM

20. Here's the clip



Anyone can surrender. In fact, members of al Qaeda have surrendered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:11 PM

26. American citizens in the Taliban have surrendered, too (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:14 PM

29. Then why won't Imperial Minister Brennan answer the very simple question?

Amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:32 PM

46. He did:

See the end of Wyden's statement and Brennan's final comment, starts at 3:15:00

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Committee-Hears-from-CIA-Director-Nominee/10737437877/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

49. Not working on my iPad.

#%^*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:57 PM

58. You're right

He finally answered the question.

Why do you think he refused to answer for so long?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:15 PM

31. They can give themselves up at any time, anywhere in the world.

All they have to do is get on a plane to NY, or walk into a US embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:16 PM

33. How? The list is secret.

How can you give yourself up if you don't even know they're after you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:43 PM

50. True, you would think though that if they joined al-Qaeda or were involved in plotting

an attack on US targets that it might clue them in that they might be on such a list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:45 PM

52. What if you haven't joined al-Qaeda, but unbeknownst to you...

... the government thinks you have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #52)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:47 PM

54. Or what if you think you have joined an CIA fake al-Qaeda that is run by fake CIA agent who

is being run by a fake al-Qaeda handler being run by an NSA agent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:45 PM

84. Yeah because no one ever ends up on the "no fly" list by mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:13 PM

62. Do you seriously believe that anyone involved with al Qaeda doesn't know what they're involved in?

And that US intelligence & law enforcement wouldn't prefer to question them & find out what they know about al Qaeda, rather than kill them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:20 PM

40. Won't they be killed if identified?

They're on a kill list. And, based on Imperial Minister Brennan's response, not allowed to surrender. Of course since it's a secret that they've been charged, it's all hypothetical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:23 PM

43. Depends. Would the on-edge E-3 you surrender to at the consulate know you're even on the list?

I doubt he would have the clearance. Once he's disarmed and restrained, it's pretty obvious they aren't going to summarily execute him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:20 PM

38. K & R !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:04 PM

59. Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" quote seems appropriate after reading this thread:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html#pklreFi1bLQGjdRl.99


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:15 PM

64. They can. The Uniform Code of Military Justice always applies

...as established by the constitution, article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

As much as he should know, Brennan might not know that. But anyone in the military - from private up to the top - would know exactly what the rights and procedures were for a foe to surrender were. I think it doesn't come up very often, though, as you pretty much have to have a serious list of crimes going to get on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:26 PM

65. Wait! I'm just an 8 year old child....

Any liberal moves by this admin will be obliterated by this single HORRIBLY wrong policy.

WE will suffer as well. If it is not okay to do so with a Republican President, it is NOT okay to do it with a Democratic President. Period!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:33 PM

67. Obama and his henchmen are no better than Bush and Cheney......

 

They have become obsessed with their power and that power needs to be checked. Unfortunately for us the Congress is impotent to do this. My view is Congress should immediately de-fund all drone activities until the Administration answers for itself. Brennan should be sent to Guantanamo for crimes against humanity and Obama should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize.

Don't get me wrong. I voted for BO in 2008 and 2012 but this has gone too far. At some point we have to be a nation of laws and not men. I want to take out terrorists before they seriously threaten us but I cannot condone Brennan's statement that "once you are on the list".....

That is the same as saying once you have been mid-identified on the TSA no-fly list, you are available for a kill.

NO, that is not the nation we are Brennan. Fuck you and hope you rot in hell......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:10 PM

70. A picky point that I think is important.

"You gave up the right to a trial when you were classified (not necessarily "became") a terrorist."

Also, if you are stupid enough to sit close to someone the government has declared a terrorist, your life is at risk. Collateral damage has become acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #70)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:53 PM

80. Collateral damage has ALWAYS been 'acceptable' in war.

There would be a lot more of it with troops on the ground. I'd prefer that we weren't meddling in ANY other country's affairs but since we are, it's the Command-In-Chief's job and responsibility to make those kind of calculations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:46 PM

75. Wouldn't Orwell be shocked by 2012?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:47 PM

76. Martin Luther King Mountain Top, Freedom speech,

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:51 PM

77. Riiiiight - just look at how well the no-fly lists work

Heaven help us all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:51 PM

78. So is America like, over now, or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:53 PM

79. Thank goodness the Obama Administration will be in power for the rest of time

Or else we might have to worry if a Republican ever became President (not that THAT will ever happen, right?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:26 AM

82. It's amazing how these things progress

 

A decade ago we were shocked at the idea that the government might secretly read a few emails to foreign recipients and listen in on phone calls to identified terrorists. If you weren't phoning AQ in Kabul you had nothing to worry about. Ten years later here we are. Now the government is claiming the legal authority to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, with no oversight or supervision, secret rules of engagement, no questions or review. And this is our guy.

From reading a few emails to this in a decade. It won't stop here of course. They want more power than just this.

Ten years from now where will we be?


What special and necessary power is President Ryan or President Paul going to be wielding? You can say, "Oh they'd never do that!" but that's what people said at prior to every step along this path. Spy on regular people? No way! Torture? No way! Indefinate detention without a trial? Not a chance! Killing Americans without a trial? What are you, a freaking nut?!

So yeah, anyone who says they would NEVER fire a hellfire into an Occupy drum circle or a Code Pink meeting or an abortion clinic is kidding themselves. Of course they would. It's not like they have some ethical reason not to. They won't today, or next week, but that day is coming. Sadly, that day is on it's way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:49 PM

85. And as far as I know it's still illegal to assassinate foreign heads of state even if they do

pose a potential threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #85)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:30 PM

86. Wow, excellent point! But then, heads of state are in the club

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCheese (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:31 PM

83. "Smile for the missile."

It's a sad state of affairs, but that cracked me up, major.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread