Does Obama's green-light on assassination of Americans change your view

[demwing]

on assault gun regulation? What about hand guns?

We mock the "gun nuts" for wanting to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. Do they now seem more justified in their fears?

[The Magistrate]

1. Not A Whisker, Sir: They Remain Sunk In Paranoid Delusion, Same As They Ever Were

[MADem]

26. There it is!

I think yours might have been the "wrong answer" (i.e. you have failed to demonstrate an anticipated degree of poutrage, agita and world-is-ending drama) but I agree w/you nonetheless.

[quaker bill]

49. Concur - thanks

[Robb]

52. At which the thread usefully concludes.

Well done.

[demwing]

55. Well isn't that special!

Why should any other opinion matter? As long as you have deemed assassination OK, then let's quit asking questions and get down to the business of killing more American citizens for whatever reason the President (any President) says is required.

Of all the self-satisfied ridiculousness...

[Robb]

62. My, you sound upset.

Your conflation failed, so accusations follow. The irony of your "position" is not lost, surely.

[demwing]

65. "Your conflation failed"

More of your opinions, masquerading as fact.

But yes, I admit that you are correct. Smarm annoys me. Congrats.

[Romulox]

57. You're a supporter of targeted assassination of Americans, though. I think he meant to engage

people who are *opposed* to process-less killings of Americans.

[The Magistrate]

63. I Recognize, Sir, That Combatants Are At Hazard In War, Whatever Their Birthplace Might Be

That is one of the things a man must accept when he takes up arms against a state, and if he is not willing to accept that, he ought to find some other activity to occupy his time.

[demwing]

66. The obvious problem is the lack of required proof.

The government is saying that they don't have to prove you're a terrorist. Just being labeled as a terrorist is sufficient reason to assassinate American citizens.

Sorry, some folks have a problem with the word assassinate. Let me rephrase....

"Just being labeled as a terrorist is sufficient reason to murder American citizens."

[The Magistrate]

69. The Obvious Problem, Sir, Is the Co-Mingling Of Categories

You are attempting to apply concepts of criminal law in civil society to the conduct of warfare.

Being a combatant at war is not a crime; killing a combatant in war is not carrying out the sentence of a court.

So far, three citizens have been killed by military or security agencies of the United States. One was a self-proclaimed leading light of a jihadi group, who gloried publicly in his status as a man at war with the United States; the other two were persons accompanying armed combatants of foreign extraction who were the actual targets of the strikes. These were not arbitrary actions, not merely labeling someone as something they actually were not. Understanding of the matter, and consideration of policy, is not advanced by pretending they were.

[demwing]

71. I believe you are missing the bigger picture

A window of opportunity has been opened. So far (to our knowledge) that windows has not been abused.

What are the guarantees that this benevolence will continue? There are no guarantees. In fact, experience shows us that given a new technology or process that invites potential abuse, the abuse will eventually happen.

This is the same argument that we make against guns. The more dangerous weapons that exist, the more the likelihood that such a weapon will be used. That door should never have been opened.

[The Magistrate]

75. And It Looks To Me Like You Are Trying To Avoid The Particulars, Sir

A person in position to abuse this who wished to abuse it would do so regardless of whether there was precedent for it or no.

[demwing]

77. By this logic, we should give up on gun control

because criminals will always get guns, it doesn't matter if we restrict them or not.

Is that your belief? Are those the particulars to which you refer?

[The Magistrate]

82. The Actual Particulars Of The Deaths, Sir

Those are most important in understanding what is actually going on.

The other is simply an observation on the realities of power, and one need look no further than the abuse of prisoners in custody under the Bush administration for demonstration: the man wanted to apply torture, and though there were laws against it, treaty obligations forbidding it, and no particular precedent for it, it was done anyway.

The matter of law applying to society at large, rather than government organs or officials themselves, is somewhat different, as there are are possibilities of enforcement against the country's populace that do not exist for its government, at least do not exist reliably, and are least reliable in cases of actual usurpation of authority.

[Rider3]

76. Yes, I'm in agreement with you

[liberal N proud]

2. An amateur gun nut vs. trained sniper with a mission to kill?

You are not going to beat the biggest military in history with a few gun nuts.

[derby378]

4. We already did

With a little help from France and the counsel of Tadusz Kosciusko of Poland (who later led a revolution in his homeland), "a few gun nuts" outmaneuvered and defeated the most powerful military in colonial times.

Your move.

[liberal N proud]

13. Hint - France isn't coming this time

The only group you could get is al Queda.

[The Magistrate]

19. That, Sir, is Distorted To The Point Of Being Flatly A-Historic

Even the History Channel would blush....

[LanternWaste]

97. Lacking that gunpowder, and your few little gun nuts turn out to be ... well, just nuts.

"With a little help from France..."

Little help? Not much into history that doesn't validate your biases, eh? Over 95% of gunpowder came directly from France. Lacking that gunpowder, and your few little gun nuts turn out to be ... well, just nuts.

[demwing]

5. "A few gun nuts" or maybe a few more?

Afghanistan shows how an inferior but determined force can successfully defend against several of the biggest military forces in history.

[RC]

41. A few gun nutz on horse back, with pre WW1, single shot rifles, defeated Russia in Afghanistan.

Now they are holding their own with us.

[The Magistrate]

64. Flat Nonesense, Sir

And if you actually do not know it is flat nonesense, you might want to reconsider comment on serious matters in public....

[RC]

83. Yeah, you're correct.

I forgot about us, U.S. arming and training them while Russia was there being beaten into bankruptcy.
Before that they were holding their own as I described.

[The Magistrate]

87. But They Were Not Even Then Holding their Own, Sir, As You Described

Assistance began almost immediately, and consisted of modern infantry weapons, of patterns that could accommodate locally captured stocks of ammunition and parts. Cross-border sanctuaries were also an important part of sustaining the forces in the field against the Soviets,and that from the very beginning. Religious fervor as a motivation, too, cannot be overlooked, nor can traditions of outlawry and social self-sufficiency in exercise of violence for private ends --- and there is nothing comparable as a factor even in the deepest fever swamps of our political and social life. Guerrilla war is primarily political and social, armament, while certainly necessary, is far from the sole factor in its commencement and continuance, let alone in its success.

[cantbeserious]

3. Their Fear Is Real - Their Paranoia May Be Misplaced

eom

[sagat]

6. "Does Obama's green-light on assassination of American terrorists change your view"

Fixed for accuracy.

[demwing]

7. Fair enough, but...

If you or I get defined as a terrorist, we may not get the same opportunity to have the record "Fixed for accuracy."

The chances of either of us getting so defined is small. Today. Tomorrow? 4 years from now?

Who can say?

[gholtron]

90. As long as they target Al Qaeda

I agree with the targeted killings of all members of Al Qaeda whether they are ex Americans or not. If you think that the second we stop target killings of Al Qaeda members that innocent people won't be murdered then I got a good deal for you on a bridge in San Francisco that I want to sell you. Figure out a better way to bring them to justice and I will lead the charge for not using drones anymore.

[rustydog]

8. WTF? will my glock stop a drone I can't see?

Have you heard of snipers?

This is not a good justification for "2nd amendment rights".

The issue is the government has decided that they do not need a burden of proof to assasinate an American Citizen abroad. When will they take the leap (this is already an olympic-gold leap of logic) and decide they can assasinate Americans on American soil.

[demwing]

9. I'm curious - which took the bigger leap?

the belief that the loosening of the burden of proof should jump from foreign to domestic soil...

...Or the idea that a Democratic President (who ran on themes of "hope" and "change&quot would order the extrajudicial assassination of Americans ANYWHERE?

[tblue]

14. That second point

feels like a punch in the gut.

[Leslie Valley]

10. ...

[upi402]

45. game, set,

sad damn match

[lonestarnot]

11. Kick back and have a glass of wine. It's good for the blood and blood takes oxygen to the brain.

Good gawd.

[Bonobo]

12. I'm consistently against both, but yes, I do see the hypocrisy.

Defending a paranoid world view in which people are assassinated (even US citizens) when judged as threats (whether or not they have actually done anything) while at the same time decrying individuals for practicing the same behavior in their own lives is hypocritical indeed.

[demwing]

32. Agreed on all points. /nt

[libdem4life]

15. No. The US is intent on Global Empire. The home folk are already owned, lock, stock and barrel.

Excuse the pun. Those who think the government is out to get them...not sure how that would even happen. And why? They are not afraid of us. Surely not FEMA...think that one played out during the latest disasters.

Gun control comes from the people like us, not thus far from the government, as I see it.

It is appropriate that American mercenaries living/fighting us abroad should not be protected by accident of birth. I detest what we are doing abroad, but when someone makes the choice to join a foreign entity, there are risks.

[OldDem2012]

17. +100. nt.

[MotherPetrie]

18. Nope, nope, and nope.

Because what they have aren't normal, reality-based "fears." It is full-blown, rip-roaring, racist-driven paranoia.

[Berserker]

60. Is that you

Mr. Phelps?

[MotherPetrie]

61. What does that mean? Please explain because I have no idea.

[Berserker]

67. With that display

Of hate I thought just maybe it was Pastor Phelps.

[MotherPetrie]

91. You obviously did not comprehend my post in the slightest then

[JaneyVee]

20. They're not really afraid of Govt, only the black guy. Never a word from them under white (R) prez.

[struggle4progress]

21. What is your theory about how to respond to non-state agencies that are, in effect, devoted

to waging war on civilian populations?

And what is your theory about the proper way to wage war? In a declared war, if Americans were known to be fighting on the enemy side, would it be your theory that they are entitled, by virtue of being American, not to have US forces fire upon them if they have not first been convicted in a civilian court? Do you consider an American sniper, in time of war, obliged to determine, before firing, that the enemy soldier in his sights is not an American?

Would it be your theory, in the case of a declared war, that it would be improper to target enemy commanders for assassination? Or is your opposition to assassination merely opposition to the targeted assassination of Americans?

Do you recognize any limitations on situations requiring due process? For example, if there were a sizable portion of the US, in which standard civil authority had collapsed for a significant time as a result of insurrection, and hence there was no possibility of bringing rebels there into lawful custody for criminal trial in the ordinarily recognized courts, would it be your view that the elected government of the US had to obtain standard indictments and convictions of persons there, before taking military action against them to restore lawful order? Similarly, if a person abroad, in a foreign region, where civil authority had collapsed, were plotting acts of war against the US targets, would it be your view that the elected government of the US had to obtain an indictments and conviction of persons there, before taking defensive military action?

Do you really believe the Administration claims a carte blanche power to assassinate people abroad? Do you think there would be no political repercussions if the current Administration assassinated a US citizen abroad, without having very good evidence that the person was involved in planning terrorist attacks and could easily not be brought into the US court system?

[bluestate10]

25. Good question. But don't expect a rational answer. The holding hands, kumbaya urge

is so strong in some DUERs that they couldn't tell a blood thirsty killer of innocents from a washing machine salesperson. Sad for them, but they insist that they are on the moral high ground, which they aren't, they are nothing more than those before them that bamboozled themselves into believing that hate driven killers would somehow see the light if shown a smidgen of quarter.

[demwing]

36. I can pretty much tell that you have no clue what I believe here

I've avoided an outright opinion here because I want to hear how others answer the questions, not how they respond to my opinion.

[demwing]

29. "Do you think there would be no political repercussions?"

Oh absolutely!

What about the next administration? Blow a hole though the Constitution, and though Presidents change, a hole is a hole.

[elleng]

37. Thanks.

[tama]

46. Your theory

is still exactly same as "Saddam has WMD", therefor mass murders and poisonings of children etc. civilian populations is justified, in the name of "pre-emptive self-protection".

[struggle4progress]

93. (1) I never supported W's Iraq adventure, and I thought from the start that the WMD noise

was obvious warmongering bullshizz;

(2) My own personal inclinations are strongly pacifist, but people didn't listen to me in the 60s, they didn't listen to me about Reagan's warmongering in the 80s, they didn't listen to me about Bush I's Panama or Gulf adventures, and they sure as shizz didn't listen to me about W's game of shrieking softly and acting like a big dick

(3) To win political discussions, it's necessary to talk to people in their terms, not in one's own term, and the current dominant conceptualization is that anti-terrorist action is a form of warfare -- so if you want to win the fight, go learn to talk to other people in their terms

(4) I simply asked questions, from which you believe you can assess my position -- you don't like questions? Tough ...

[tama]

98. Questions have premises

and your question was based on same premise as W's Iraq adventure, pre-emptive self-protection.

To not to get lost in political etc. discussions, it's necessary question the terms and 'dominant conceptualizations' that lead to conclusions and actions like as drone killings etc.

Dominant conceptualization of "pre-emptive self-protection" is not acceptable on any ethical and rational discourse based on Goldent/Silver rule, as that dominant conceptualization would justify killing also all Americans who believe in that dominant conceptualization, and are continuing to act according to it, killing and maiming and terrorizing people.

Golden/Silver rule is simple concept which most people understand very well and act accordingly, as is also pre-emptive self-protection, and most people when contrasting and relating those concepts understand very well that acting according to Golden/Silver rule is best pre-emptive self-protection, not the terror and murder campaign US is doing against people like you and me.

If you let fear- and warmongers do the framing and choose premises and discuss their questions inside their frames, you have already lost the political discussion. The real frame is weighing King Obama plus more bucks for MIC against Magna Charta and Golden/Silver rule.

[uponit7771]

22. Only if ACORN stole the election for Obama

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Is that you Alex?

[bluestate10]

24. Killing a terrorist isn't assassination. nt

[Angry Dragon]

27. How about a suspected terrorist??

[demwing]

28. Who's the terrorist

Today?

Tomorrow?

[elleng]

35. Right.

[tama]

47. OK

So people who are terrorized by drones would be justified to kill - but not assassinate - the terrorists who are flying drones and people who vote those terrorists in power?

[Solly Mack]

30. Nope

[demwing]

33. Why?

[Solly Mack]

43. Why would one change my mind about the other?

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I disagree with a policy. That doesn't mean I believe I need to hoard guns because one day I'll be fighting the government in combat.

America has problems. I don't think those problems have risen to the level of armed conflict.

The best way to prevent a tyrannical government is to be informed. Vote. Don't be afraid to protest. Don't be afraid to question government. Don't allow your prejudices and fears to dictate your beliefs and actions.

I honestly don't know of a left-wing group of people hoarding guns from fear of a tyrannical government. I do know Democrats that own guns - but not because they are saving up for the day they go into combat against the government.


No guns in my house, btw.

[demwing]

56. I never mentioned gun hoarding

not a part of the question, so why bring it up?

[Solly Mack]

59. You said gun nuts.

Brings to mind someone collecting as many guns as possible because they live in fear of the government taking their guns away.

[demwing]

74. I put the term in quotes

you defined it, not me.

[Solly Mack]

86. Allrighty then.

[abelenkpe]

31. Nope. Nt

[elleng]

34. No, and NOT assassination, which is

To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.

Apparently we STILL haven't caught on: This is war. Confusing for some, I guess, as it's not country vs. country, but al queda vs. U.S. and allies.

Al queda is an international organization of loosely affiliated cells that carry out attacks and bombings in the attempt to disrupt the economies and influence of Western nations and advance Islamic fundamentalism.

[dlwickham]

39. thank you!

so glad that someone spelled this out for others

[demwing]

40. "To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons."

I disagree, but since you called it, how does your definition change anything about my question?

To murder = ok

a prominent person = any person on the US kill list is, by default, a prominent person

by surprise attack = well, who expects to be shot by a sniper or bombed by a drone?

for political reasons = or religion, or money, or revenge, or war

yep. Assassination, alrighty.

[quaker bill]

50. There is nothing "prominent" about a dillweed I have never heard of.

I don't care what list he or she is on.

[demwing]

51. I'm sure that all the people on our kill list will be relieved

since you've never heard of them, they can't possibly be assassinated.

[demwing]

58. A pimple on your nose is prominent

but that doesn't make it famous or important.

Dismiss the whole concept that only famous or important people get assassinated, that's not a requirement for the definition.

[quaker bill]

89. So, by your standards

who ends up dead at the hands of our military and was not assassinated? Perhaps it is only the indiscriminate and unintended deaths that don't qualify. Those 10s or 100s thousands of dead were not assassinated, because of course their names were not on a list?

Obviously all the dudes on that deck of cards in Iraq were assassinated, correct? We picked them because they actually were prominent, so they can't just be simple war dead, right? Now, if they were assassinated, then the drone strikes are simply doing the same stuff we did with cruise missles, F-16s, fuel-air bombs, tanks (Saddam's boys) all over Iraq and Afghanistan. We knew who they were, put them on a list and specifically wanted them dead, no trial, no appeal. Then we went and killed them, with clear intent and absolute prejudice.

Your chosen use of the term renders it nearly meaningless.

[fujiyama]

42. Al Qaeda is a pretty loose organization

and I think it could be argued that it's several organizations - making it more of an umbrella or clearinghouse of networks. I don't know how you defeat "Al Qaeda" itself - as you said, the problem is fanatical Islamist fundamentalism, which is an ideology, that cannot be defeated by force alone.

Now, don't get me wrong. Unlike a lot of others on this board, I'm actually not completely against the use of drones (I think they can be effective in limited use against only high ranking targets in areas with a low number of civilians). They beat the alternatives - which involves bribing corrupt and often devious local warlords (which often tip-off the targets), risking US troops either by invasion, bombing runs, or special forces raids - none of which are proven to be any more effective in avoiding civilian casualties.

The problem is when the government issues a memo that actually explicitly justifies the targeted killings of American citizens. It sets a disturbing precedent. Even if the suspect explicitly declares war on the US (and yes, I understand joining Al Qaeda means pretty much that), the idea of sending out a "death squad" (and the drone is essentially that) and "ordering a hit" on an American citizen (regardless of his or her physical location) just makes me feel uncomfortable, unless there is an imminent threat involved. This "war on terrorism" has the potential (and likelihood) of being never ending. Are we to remain in a state of war perpetually where we continually make exceptions to our Constitutional protections?

[dlwickham]

38. no

[upi402]

44. do liberals support a initary executive whacking citizens?

if that's liberal, i dunno anymore.
they will pull off another catastrophe that cements their power - and we may be next up

[JoePhilly]

48. Nope, they're just as crazy as ever.

If an American citizen takes up arms against the United States, the United States should be able to defend itself against that individual or individuals.

Kind of like during the civil war. A group of Americans decided to take up arms against the United States. And the US President, used his military, and killed lots and lots of them. Maybe if Lincoln had a few drones, the civil war would have ended sooner with much less loss of life.

[demwing]

53. "takes up arms against the United States"

what if an armed person robbed a federally insured bank? Does that qualify? Do they deserve to be killed without a trial, without any evidence, or without even the opportunity to surrender themselves?

Even in the Civil War, either side could surrender, and be reasonably sure that they would be treated humanely.

[JoePhilly]

54. Robbing a bank, even one that is federally ensured, is not ...

taking up arms against the US government.

To take up arms against the government is to try and destroy that government, not simply steal from it.

Americans who go to Yemen and join a terrorist organization are just as free to surrender as the confederate soldier was.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Nope. I'm still against killing people with guns or drones.

[demwing]

73. As am I / nt

[CJCRANE]

70. A drone, a cruise missile, a helicopter gunship, special forces.

If we separate out the means of delivery then we can look at the policy.

Imagine that Bin Laden held a US passport. Would it then be permissible to send any one of those things to attack his compound in a foreign country?

Most Americans would say "yes". And, despite his critics, Obama is a very "American" president in that his views reflect the broad center ground of American politics.

[demwing]

72. Civil rights should not be protected based on popular opinion. /nt

[gcomeau]

78. No

And frankly the question is so ridiculous I feel no need to elaborate on that response.

[demwing]

79. That depends on your view on Gun Control, doesn't it? /nt

[gcomeau]

80. No, actually it doesn't. -eom

[demwing]

81. Well, since you won't share the details of your opinion

I guess there's no way to judge if you are correct, or just feeling superior.

[gcomeau]

84. I'll give you one hint...

...and then I'll stop since I have no interest in expending energy discussing something this silly.

IF the government turned tyrannical and they sent a drone after you... tell me all about how you packing an Ar-15 in your closet stops the hellfire missile from blowing you into flaming little chunks. Leaving aside the REST of the military capability the government would bring to bear.

All done now.

[demwing]

85. First , you seem to assume I favor owning an assault weapon

I don't.

I can't see why anyone would need to have such a weapon, and I recognize that having one at the ready could - even under the best of intentions - lead to tragedy.

I feel the same way about the extrajudicial labeling of American citizens as terrorists, and the subsequent murder of such accused persons. I can't see why anyone would need to have such a weapon, and I recognize that having one at the ready could - even under the best of intentions - lead to tragedy.

[gcomeau]

88. Read the "you" as generic.

You asked, you got your answer, and like I said... all done here.

[jambo101]

92. Got any examples of these assasinated Americans?

[DireStrike]

94. No. The government will always have superior force. -nt-

[Deep13]

95. unrelated nt

[LanternWaste]

96. How precisely would a hand gun protect me from a drone...?

How precisely would a hand gun protect me from a drone-- regardless of whether its government or civilian?

[demwing]

99. Not my issue

I'm not trying to justify gun use. Just the opposite. I'm trying to apply the same logic to the use of drones against Americans as we apply to the use of assault weapons (and guns in general).

The same argument against owning an assault weapon also applies to the extrajudicial labeling of American citizens as terrorists, and the subsequent murder of such accused persons:

I can't see why anyone would need to have such a tool, it isn't necessary to accomplish the goals that its advocates claim, and just having such a thing ready and available can lead to tragedy, regardless of the intentions of the users.