HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Debunking the Ridiculous ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:07 PM

Debunking the Ridiculous Rhetoric that Obama is an Assassin Who Targets Innocent Americans

http://www.politicususa.com/conflate.html


Debunking the Ridiculous Rhetoric that Obama is an Assassin Who Targets Innocent Americans

By: Rmuse
Feb. 9th, 2013


If Americans were queried about their vision of ideal government in a dangerous world where America was not adored by all, there would be as many different responses as there are people depending on their worldview and political ideology, but reasonably they would break down into a few groups. Conservatives would relish oligarchy with the masses toiling to fund global military conquest to impose corporate dominance over the entire world, and religious fundamentalists would imagine a population bound by biblical edict and enslaved to fund an onward Christian army to exterminate Islam in preparation for Christ’s Second Coming. Pragmatic liberals might dream of economic opportunity and civil rights for all with a powerful military to defend the homeland and, as a last resort, protect their interests from aggression abroad. Within the latter group is segment envisioning a world with no animosity toward America and no need for proactive military intervention to protect the homeland from enemies devoted to destroying Americans, and their rhetoric informs their naïveté.

Unfortunately, America does have enemies and although there is no need for corporate or religious imperialism and conquest, expecting this government to ignore imminent threats from abroad informs a worldview unattached from reality. The world is not, and will never be, inhabited by peace-loving people with adoration for all things American, and one would think the terrorist attacks on 911 and subsequent attempts by al-Qaeda affiliates would afford the government leeway to protect America and its people before known terrorists carry out attacks on America. The recent furor over the use of unmanned drones to kill known terrorists abroad is understandable on many levels, but the rhetoric being used by the President’s critics to portray him as an assassin is ridiculous on its face, and assumes a devious Presidential plot to kill innocent American citizens as if for sport, or as one malcontent claimed, “a person with a killing technology fetish.”

First and foremost, no reasonable American condones killing innocent civilians, Americans or foreigners, and there are no reasonable Americans driven by a killing fetish to deprive Americans of their due process; even murderers deserve a trial by a jury of the peers. However, to assume it is even possible to capture an al-Qaeda mastermind such as al-Awlaki in a country like Yemen, and give him due process with a jury of his peers, is absurd. Al-Awlaki was American born, but when he inspired the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber to kill innocent Americans, his civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.” Even if al-Awlaki was captured in a foreign nation, would a jury of his peers be 12 Americans he vowed to kill, or 12 al-Qaeda operatives from Yemen where he took up residence, planned and directed the killings of innocent American citizens?

snip//

This is a complex, emotional issue for all Americans, and yet there can be no reasonable debate on any level when a term like “targeting American citizens” is the primary talking point. One would hope that when intelligence about an impending attack reaches the highest levels of government, the last thing the men deciding to use lethal force take into account is whether or not the al-Qaida planner, or underwear bomber, is an American-born or Yemeni citizen. It is doubtful that the families of the three-thousand victims of 911 would be torn over President Bush ordering a drone strike on an American-born terrorist piloting one of the planes that flew into the Trade Towers, or President Obama ordering the killing of al-Awlaki before directing the Fort Hood shooter or underwear bomber over Detroit to commit acts of terror. No American knows what goes into the decision-making process leading to a targeted drone strike, except that it is not President Obama deliberately targeting American citizens for death, and it is pure folly to think terrorists will stop to reflect on whether their attack will kill innocent Muslims or Christians; they just kill Americans.

There is one other aspect those concerned about the so-called “killing of American citizens” seriously need to consider. When a terrorist who was fortunate enough to be born in America brings his son along and joins an extremist group and plans, directs, or intends to carry out a mass killing of American civilians, it is reasonable to assume they are no longer Americans, they are an imminent danger. Maybe in an idealistic Utopia they would surrender to law enforcement to receive their Constitutional right to due process, but this is the real world, and they pose a real threat, and one hopes the President takes real steps to stop them before they kill real Americans.

136 replies, 9257 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 136 replies Author Time Post
Reply Debunking the Ridiculous Rhetoric that Obama is an Assassin Who Targets Innocent Americans (Original post)
babylonsister Feb 2013 OP
zappaman Feb 2013 #1
Andy823 Feb 2013 #2
jenmito Feb 2013 #3
monmouth3 Feb 2013 #6
jenmito Feb 2013 #7
freshwest Feb 2013 #56
OKNancy Feb 2013 #4
Cha Feb 2013 #12
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #111
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #5
greatauntoftriplets Feb 2013 #8
Drunken Irishman Feb 2013 #9
Cha Feb 2013 #20
Drunken Irishman Feb 2013 #25
Cha Feb 2013 #27
politicaljunkie41910 Feb 2013 #136
bvar22 Feb 2013 #10
jenmito Feb 2013 #13
bvar22 Feb 2013 #17
jenmito Feb 2013 #19
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #33
SCVDem Feb 2013 #40
George II Feb 2013 #46
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #49
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #87
MattSh Feb 2013 #98
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #109
George II Feb 2013 #44
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #54
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #92
mopinko Feb 2013 #125
ReRe Feb 2013 #67
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #76
02potato Feb 2013 #129
jenmito Feb 2013 #130
02potato Feb 2013 #131
graham4anything Feb 2013 #18
PSPS Feb 2013 #28
George II Feb 2013 #48
frylock Feb 2013 #71
joelz Feb 2013 #11
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #14
a2liberal Feb 2013 #36
grahampuba Feb 2013 #39
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #82
DevonRex Feb 2013 #100
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #105
NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #110
Cha Feb 2013 #15
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #16
midnight Feb 2013 #68
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #121
zipplewrath Feb 2013 #21
Bodhi BloodWave Feb 2013 #133
zipplewrath Feb 2013 #135
Hippo_Tron Feb 2013 #22
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #23
rury Feb 2013 #24
hedgehog Feb 2013 #26
Amonester Feb 2013 #30
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #66
aquart Feb 2013 #29
George II Feb 2013 #52
aquart Feb 2013 #126
George II Feb 2013 #127
judesedit Feb 2013 #31
skepticscott Feb 2013 #32
99th_Monkey Feb 2013 #42
99th_Monkey Feb 2013 #34
Lordquinton Feb 2013 #35
frylock Feb 2013 #37
99th_Monkey Feb 2013 #41
Dawgs Feb 2013 #62
George II Feb 2013 #38
sulphurdunn Feb 2013 #43
SCVDem Feb 2013 #45
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #57
Humanist_Activist Feb 2013 #47
AzDar Feb 2013 #50
ReRe Feb 2013 #51
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #58
ReRe Feb 2013 #60
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #63
ReRe Feb 2013 #69
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #53
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #112
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #132
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #134
nauthiz Feb 2013 #55
patrice Feb 2013 #59
patrice Feb 2013 #61
SCVDem Feb 2013 #64
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #113
Dawgs Feb 2013 #65
patrice Feb 2013 #70
Amonester Feb 2013 #91
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #72
Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2013 #73
rug Feb 2013 #74
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #115
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #75
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #77
Auntie Bush Feb 2013 #78
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #86
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #79
SCVDem Feb 2013 #81
Vinnie From Indy Feb 2013 #80
jazzimov Feb 2013 #83
freshwest Feb 2013 #84
great white snark Feb 2013 #85
limpyhobbler Feb 2013 #88
ucrdem Feb 2013 #93
PopeOxycontinI Feb 2013 #89
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #90
ucrdem Feb 2013 #95
ucrdem Feb 2013 #94
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #96
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #97
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #117
ProSense Feb 2013 #119
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #124
CerebralDreams Feb 2013 #99
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #101
Bonobo Feb 2013 #102
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #118
Martin Eden Feb 2013 #103
Enrique Feb 2013 #104
ProSense Feb 2013 #106
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #114
Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2013 #107
Cane4Dems Feb 2013 #108
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #116
rgbecker Feb 2013 #120
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #122
Icecream man Feb 2013 #123
budkin Feb 2013 #128

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:11 PM

1. Thanks for this!

Excellent article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:14 PM

2. Thank you for posting this. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:18 PM

3. K&R. I'm so tired of people like Joe Scarborough and his girlfriend Mika acting like Obama IS

going around killing innocent Americans, and saying that if BUSH did this he'd immediately be impeached. Funny how Bush didn't even get impeached for starting a war of choice based on lies which killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenmito (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:22 PM

6. What you said..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth3 (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:23 PM

7. Thanks, monmouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenmito (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:05 PM

56. Thanks, jenmito, those are my sentiments as well. The shills are paid by GOP billionaires.

That's something everyone needs to know.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:21 PM

4. watch out -- if you don't call him an assassin

then you are "pathetic and totally predictable"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=394641

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:31 PM

12. Like they're not "predictable"

rah rah rahing for anything Assange says or does regardless of facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:34 AM

111. And if you offer the facts, you'll be called "Absolutely sick and disgusting."

And told "You should be ashamed of yourself." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2333771

Since when did the FACTS become anathema to so many DUers? I thought that is what we were all about....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:21 PM

5. Thank you. I am tired of this crap being ranted about right here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:24 PM

8. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:26 PM

9. It's fucking ridiculous and makes those who make claims like this look like utter fools...

It also undermines their arguments because it's hard to take anyone seriously who really believes Obama is going to target the Smith family as they vacation in Paris.

Frankly, the way this has been reported has bordered on negligence - but whatever. It's funny how so many people want to push the truth, demand the truth and then when the truth is released ... twist it to fit their argument. I've seen it here on DU, I've read it online ... it's pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:56 PM

20. One comment under the article said it was

reminiscent of the NRA talking points of "Obama's coming to take all our guns away".. works on some idiots but not the majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:15 PM

25. Sadly, it also is getting support at places like DU...

Hyperbole is never a good argument and sadly, that's what has gripped this entire debate. Instead of having a legitimate debate about drone strikes and what we maybe can do ... you've got people running around with their hair on fire. OMG! OBAMA IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:27 PM

27. I noticed.. it's stupid..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:34 PM

136. But what about the 'slippery slope'??? Sure we trust Obama but what about Cheney and Rumsfield???

OMG. As if Cheney and Rumsfield ever gave hoot about the law. Their end always justified their means and if you took away the drones they would find a way to subvert the process, just like Oliver North and Reagan did.

Either you have integrity or you don't. You cannot NOT use the tools that you have at your disposal to fight an enemy sworn to destroy you because, some future unscrupulous administration might act in an unscrupulous manner.

The Left's "hair on fire" moment has presented itself.

John McCain (R) wants the program to come under DoD not the CIA so that he as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee can provide oversight. While (Rep-Mich) Mike Rogers wants to keep it under the CIA where he as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee has oversight. Rogers says that there is already "adequate" oversight of the drone program's targeted killings. Did Rodgers say that because he likes Obama. I think NOT. Perhaps he was being honest; that the program has in fact "adequate" oversight. For those who want to put the decision in the hands of a FISA court judge. First of all, why do we expect judges to be any less partisian than they've proven to be in the past when it comes to Constitutional matters. What's Constitutional is in the eyes of the beholder these days.

So why not put the decision making in the hands of the elected officials, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and at the same time defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with sufficient oversight, which the program seems to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:26 PM

10. I thought ALL Americans were "innocent"...

...until proven guilty in a court of law.

What ever happened to THAT?
.
.
.
.
Oh Yeah.
Like Bush did for torture, the White House got a note from their lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:35 PM

13. Bull. If you join al Qaeda, put out a video calling for "death to America" & aiding others in

killing Americans AND/or take up arms against your own country, you lose your "innocent until proven guilty" status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenmito (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:50 PM

17. I don't remember that exemption specified in the Constitution.

Please point me to the pertinent clause.


As an American Citizen,
I have the Right & Responsibility to

* Hear my government's case against the accused

*Examine the Evidence presented in a PUblic Trial

*Ensure that the Government's Case is valid.

As History has demonstrated,
when these steps are skipped for convenience,
BAD THINGS inevitable happen.

It must be nice to be so trusting of the government.
I'm glad our forefathers weren't,
and said so in those crusty, old, antiquated documents.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:55 PM

19. Our forefathers owned slaves, so I don't consider them the gold standard. Things change. My post

stands. If someone, American or not, does the things listed, they don't deserve our Constittional rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenmito (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:58 PM

33. Al Alwakis (sp?) son was not a terrorist by any streatch.

 

The boy, his cousin and bystanders all died by drone attack. By the way, he was a natural born American too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:42 PM

40. Sorry!

When you wish death to America and start organizing, you are now an enemy combatant. I really dislike that phrase.

If you surround yourselves with the innocent, YOU put them in danger.

If we invaded, like Iraq and the Stan of Afghans, there would be many more dead while we march through a country to get him.

I don't have a clue what intel the President uses for targeting, but I don't think he acts as incompetently as Bush/Cheney Inc.

I guess we need many American casualties to balance the guilt if we do it with a drone. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:50 PM

46. His father and uncle should have thought about that before becoming an enemy of America

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:53 PM

49. The "bystanders" you refer to were the targeted terrorists. The son was not targeted.

He was hanging out with known terrorists in a camp in Yemen.

As another DUer has explained in another thread about this:

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2331096

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #49)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:23 AM

87. Oh, well that makes all the difference then.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #49)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:01 AM

98. Ah yes...

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

Sounds totally legit to me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattSh (Reply #98)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:15 AM

109. What do you claim to be the facts? What is YOUR source?

Seems to me the fact that the kid was in Yemen hanging out with terrorists is undisputed. Since he had not been in Yemen that long, having just left his home in Colorado, how would we even know where he was? It's not like he was hanging out with people who would relay such info to our government. Did his Egyptian mother back in Colorado call the State Department for help to bring him back if she knew he had run away to Yemen? So what "legit" source do you have that he was specifically targeted? 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:49 PM

44. Our forefathers trusted THEIR government.

If your three bullet points were possible, I'm sure the Obama administration would have observed them.

American citizens do NOT have the right to move to another nation, join a terrorist organization and teach others how to attack and kill Americans. If they do that they forfeit the rights "guaranteed" to them in the Constitution. They become the enemy, plain and simple. And the rules of war then apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:59 PM

54. Article 1, Section 8

gives congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"
etc...

etc...on September 14, 2001, congress authorized military force to be used against the enemies who attacked us:

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


And, as should be clear, the conflict was then conducted according to the Uniform Code of Military Law, as has every previous war. That is the set of rules and laws that apply to warfare, and include all the various international agreements we are party to, Geneva Law, and so forth.

We've never conducted a war by heading out to arrest people and try them in court, unless they surrender - then its still a military tribunal and not a civil court. Citizenship is very much secondary - just consider how little it mattered in the civil war! If you take up arms against the country, joining or supporting a group that congress has declared war against, waving the constitution would be comically stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:58 AM

92. Excellent point about the Civil War. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:05 PM

125. this reply deserves its own thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:52 PM

67. One of the first things journalists learn in journalism school...

... is that governments lie. Period. It's a fact. BTW, I agree with you. Reading down this thread, it's kind of hard to keep up with who agrees and who disagrees.
It's really weird... like people are talking past each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:41 PM

76. That's pretty funny.

And pretty stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenmito (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:45 PM

129. where is the law that says...

you lose your "innocent until proven guilty" status when you.......

respectfully, just a question ...nothing more..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 02potato (Reply #129)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 08:29 PM

130. Post #54 is a great post which should answer your concerns. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenmito (Reply #130)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:46 PM

131. Atrticle 1 section 8 can't find it. help... http://www.usconstitution.net ..Are we at war ?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:51 PM

18. I am tired of the Ralph Nader fake Bush/anyone analogy in the alt media.

 

Bush went to a place he shouldn't have, which has nothing to do with this issue.

There was not one person who didn't want to go after Alqueeda wherever they were after 9-11, and all of congress agreed with it. BUT NOT IRAQ.
Iraq was the one place they were not.

However, nobody ever said terrorists did not exist. And kill.

Don't like Bush?
Don't waste a vote on a third party who just wants to make megamilliions whining like both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have done for decades.

BTW, I don't hate Ralph Nader.
Had HE been the democratic nominee, I would have voted for him.
But he never ran as a democratic candidate, nor does he have a geniuine bone in his body because of 2000 saying both are the same.And he never came close to winning, yet he directly caused 2000 keeping ten million voters home and not voting.

He used to care about the enviornment, and I would have thought he would hate corporate personhood.
Yet Ralph Nader directly gave us Alito and Roberts and bankrupted the nation, and caused the unemployment problem. Yeah, sure a democratic nominee would have picked those two who gave us these laws, yeah, sure.

Yet the concern over president Obama but not any of the others is mindboggling.

the fact that he was just an egotistical whiner who threw an election to the repulicans lost my trust in him forever.
Plus he has more money in his bank directly because of what he did in 2000.

and why do I get the hint that the same people will not vote in 2014 and vote for a different party in 2016 and then whine whine whine if Jeb Bush gets backed in

Because the alt-media gets rich off of this and conspiracy theories.

My loyalty to the President and the continuation of his agenda for decades more is knowing what has happened in the past and I don't want the past since Reagan repeated.

At least Nixon was smart enough not to allow a Bush to get a seat at the table.
yet those in the alt-media out there that put our President down, will do just that in 2016 if they could.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:28 PM

28. Apparently, such considerations about policy have become quaint, including here on DU.

Frankly, it's hard to distinguish between the "Obaba, right or wrong" and the "Bush. right or wrong" mentalities. They're both bankrupt and anti-American because they profess allegiance to a person rather than to the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:52 PM

48. I haven't seen any "Obama (or "Obaba") right or wrong" people on this site

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:26 PM

71. the hivemind mentality of many democrats isn't much different than their republican counterparts..

the fact that many here don't see that distinction only underscores my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:26 PM

11. Most of what I

have heard regards the complete lack of constitutional rights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:41 PM

14. Bullshit neocon talking points right down to the creepy fucking "Homeland" reference.

Within the latter group is segment envisioning a world with no animosity toward America and no need for proactive military intervention to protect the homeland from enemies devoted to destroying Americans, and their rhetoric informs their naïveté.


What the neocons who support this hogwash willfully fail to consider is the fact that preemptive warfare creates more animosity toward the US, blowback ensues, more need for preemption doctrine inspired aggression. it never ceases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:18 PM

36. +1000000

It is freaking creepy to see this sort of BS posted by a prolific DU poster, and to see all the support it's getting. Do DUers no longer care about principles when they're slightly inconvenient?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a2liberal (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:34 PM

39. innocents?

I see, it only applies to Americans.
when they jump the fence they lose the right to a life.

and any 'military aged males' that just happen to die via a drone strike that are conveniently reclassified as terrorists, that were previously just bakers or doctors or whatever. They lose that right too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:45 PM

82. No shit. Maybe we should start calling "The Fatherland"

Obama was allowed into office so that HIS brain-dead followers would come on board with torture and murder. Downright disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:04 AM

100. So Obama is Hitler and we are all stupid evil Nazis. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #100)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:44 AM

105. Of course not. But this is how a people slide into fascism

a charismatic leader talks otherwise decent people into believing that murder is OK, that teachers are bad, that liberals are to blame for huge deficits so Medicare has to be cut, and so on. and you have to admit that Obama could talk a lot of people into pretty much anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:32 AM

110. All you need to do is "Find and Replace" Obama and GWB..

and it's something right out of National Review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:43 PM

15. Glad you posted that, babylonsistah.. I saw it on my

homepage and was going back to read it.

Where would they be without their Hyperbole? Discussing it rationally? Not a chance. That doesn't bring in the donor dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:44 PM

16. Did the fact that we droned Al-Awlaki eliminate the possibility

that some of his followers will carry out a mass killing of American civilians?

It isn't a matter of deluding ourselves into believing in an idealistic Utopia in which we are safe from violent extremists.

The issue is how we decide who is a threat.

One thing that has bothered me is that a number of fools who were assisted in planning fake bomb attacks by undercover agents here in the US are considered terrorists and have even been tried and convicted as terrorists.

On the other hand the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords and killed bystanders at the same time for what to any reasonable mind had to have been the purpose of political intimidation at the very least was treated as a criminal. He got a psychiatric appraisal, the whole works.

And I don't care about that. Obviously the guy that shot Giffords was in the US and Al-Awlaki was not. But what I want to know is just how we decide who is an ordinary criminal entitled to the due process of our law under our Constitution and who is a terrorist and not covered by the constitutional right to due process?

Why is someone who thus far at least to my knowledge had not yet killed anyone considered a terrorist while someone who took military weapons to a political meet and greet in a mall tried as a criminal?

What are the criteria? How can a person know whether he or she is doing something or discussing something or meeting with someone that might cause him or her to be considered a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism?

How can someone know that they can go and shoot a bunch of people and not be labeled a terrorist? What is the definition of a terrorist? of terrorism? I would like a definition that can be applied consistently so that an Al Awlaki can know that he or she is crossing the line and so that I who post on DU can know that I am not crossing the line when I express an idea that some may not like.

Vague lines between crime and innocence allow for a lot of arbitrary decisions. It's not that Obama is making arbitrary decisions, but the purpose of clear laws is that they prevent or greatly discourage unfair treatment, arbitrary decisions, even corruption. We need clarity, and people in other countries who may be sucked in by terrorist groups also need clarity if they are to say no and avoid paying a price for their foolishness and ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:07 PM

68. When broaching the subject about who could review drone strike decisions, Brennan said

the following:

"When senators pressed Brennan to have judicial oversight of drone strike decisions where they concerned Americans, he said it could be considered but doubted whether a court could evaluate intelligence on whether a militant posed a threat. Why can intelligence bureaucrats make that evaluation but judges cannot? Occasionally the arrogance of the intelligence aristocracy peaked out at the hearing."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/15933-focus-top-ten-surprises-of-the-brennan-hearing







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #68)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:42 PM

121. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:57 PM

21. Can you justify that assertion?

"However, to assume it is even possible to capture an al-Qaeda mastermind such as al-Awlaki in a country like Yemen, and give him due process with a jury of his peers, is absurd."


Why? Really, why is it absurd? I mean, it would seem that such a declaration would require some justification. We have captured people all over the world at one time or another. We have/had (dunno if Bush got rid of it) an FBI unit specifically to do just this. Heck, we invaded Panama just to arrest someone and bring him to trial. We could have arrested Bin Laden, as it turns out, but we didn't even try. We put the Lockerbee terrorist on trial. We put the Achilli Lauro terrorists on trial. We are the most powerful military on earth, by far. Why is it so impossible to enter Yemen, and capture someone for trial? Why do we have international courts if it is so impossible to bring people to them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:27 AM

133. out of curiosity

How many us troops or law enforcement people(of the relevant type) are you willing to sacrifice in order to bring somebody to trial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #133)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:05 PM

135. Just as many

Just as many as we are willing to risk killing them.

How many Seal Team 6 members did we send?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:06 PM

22. I agree with you that by taking up residence in Pakistan or Yemen...

And engaging in activities with Al Qaeda, Al-Awlaki has essentially put on the uniform of an enemy nation and thus we can kill him without trial because you're allowed to kill enemy soldiers without trial. He still of course, ought to have been able to surrender to the authorities, and avail himself of his rights under the US constitution.

The problem is that the 2001 AUMF doesn't say taking up residence in Pakistan or Yemen and it doesn't explicitly say anything about Al Qaeda. It says that the President, more or less, can use war powers against anyone at any time and anywhere he sees fit to respond to the attacks on 9/11. That's way too much power, in my opinion.

And morally here's where I find a problem. There hasn't actually been an existential threat to the United States (other than the Soviet Union, which we never went to war with) since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Is it really worth killing hundreds of civilians to keep fighting an enemy that has zero probability of ever defeating us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:10 PM

23. Finally some common sense up in here... going to bookmark PoliticusUSA...

 

Until the rest of the liberal blogosphere is done with their collective hissyfit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:10 PM

24. Thank you and thank you again for that TRUTH!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:22 PM

26. It's a discussion we need to have, and we need rules.

I suspect that Obama ordered the release of the information on the use of drones to provoke discussion. That said, the rules of WWII don't apply to today's situation. At one time, armies dressed their troops in bright colors and met by appointment on the battle field. We don't do that any more, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:42 PM

30. North Korea does that, but they don't appoint to the battle field yet.

Although, with their 'new' young (old) leader going crazier by the day, who knows when they will...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:49 PM

66. The rules aren't hard to find - here's a good start:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#innocent

and not by any stretch have they been laying around neglected since wwII!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:31 PM

29. No. I'm fine with drones but not this.

AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS. I don't have it in me to give a fucking inch on that. Of course that man would not want me on his jury, but distinguishing one piece of scum from another like that? Our bankers, our oilmen, our congressmen have killed far more Americans but I don't see drones at their palatial homes. I don't even see perp walks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:59 PM

52. So how do you feel about "American citizens" who renounce their country and plot against it......

.....in an anti-American country alongside al Qaeda? How do you give that person "due process"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:07 PM

126. I dunno. But if the Israelis could catch Eichmann...

I don't mind a little creativity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #126)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:42 PM

127. Eichmann wasn't an Israeli citizen, and that comparison is illogical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:44 PM

31. Too bad they didn't get Tim McVeigh before he bombed the Murrah killing 168, inc 19 children, injuri

ng 450 others. I wouldn't have minded a drone taking him out, along with Nichols, beforehand....would you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:57 PM

32. Sorry, but if you drop a bomb

then you ARE condoning the death of anyone killed by that bomb. As any "reasonable American" knows, sometimes "innocent civilians" get in the way of bombs and other weapons that weren't meant for them, and that sometimes weapons don't go where they are intended..such deaths are entirely foreseeable and, in fact, pretty much inevitable.

If you shoot at one person with the intention of murdering them, but miss and kill someone else instead, you are still both legally and morally responsible for the death, whether you intended it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:47 PM

42. Totally! Self-imposed blindness is no excuse for missing a target,

both literally and figuratively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:58 PM

34. An "ideal government in a dangerous world where America was not adored by all"

Last edited Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

The question that the author of this otherwise well-written piece so studiously is avoiding is
"why exactly do so many people in impoverished & exploited nations have such an intense
unyielding hatred of the USofA?"


This is why 4-star General Wilkerson describes the drone program as totally "counter-productive"
in that it's CREATING more terrorists than it is eliminating. In these nations, family is
everything, and we're creating nations filled with rage at a remote arrogant nation who
murdered their father, mother, child, husband, uncle, cousin, et. al. without there being any
criminal charges brought, without a chance to prove suspicions of guilt to be incorrect, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:06 PM

35. I'm mixed on this whole issue

but the way the press are spinning out of control it seems like there is much more too it than is being talked about, and I don't like how they are applying it to saying that he can kill anyone, anywhere, at any time for no reason. He isn't doing anything new, this has been happening for a long time, now he can just do it without risking our personnel, or massive collateral with a missile.

However this line: "His civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.” " is so wrong, on so many levels, I couldn't begin to explain how infuriated it makes me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:23 PM

37. hey good luck with your next republican president..

methinks your attitude about this program will flip 180.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:44 PM

41. DING! DING! we have a winner!! True dat ~ nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:59 PM

62. Thank you. Reducing the argument to Obama makes it no better than a Fox News "argument".

DU should be embarrassed for supporting this BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:34 PM

38. Thank you - maybe this will end some of the conspiracy theory and dictator stuff? Probably not

And thank you also for giving us sensible people a refuge from those paranoid people who are gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out.

I'm still waiting for the "Occupy Drone" rally outside the White House!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:48 PM

43. When an American

president takes his oath of office he swears before God to do only one thing, and that is to uphold the Constitution and to do that against all enemies foreign and domestic. He is not at liberty to cherry pick which articles he will enforce. The Bill of Rights guarantees due process of law to all US citizens. The poster states: "Al-Awlaki was American born, but when he inspired the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber to kill innocent Americans, his civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.” They most categorically were not. Only a court has the legal authority to strip an American citizen of his or her life or liberty, and then only after due process. Even then, the guilty may not be subject to torture or any form of cruel punishment. When George Bush discarded his oath of office and began torturing and killing people, he was justifiably considered a criminal. Barack Obama is no different.

The Constitution does not authorize a president to commit extra-judicial killings of American citizens for any reason, nor does it give him the authority to declare anyone's citizenship or constitutional rights forfeit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:49 PM

45. How many Americans have been killed by drones?

To hear the outrage there must be over 20 at least.

One is too many does not fly when we also have the death penalty.

We execute the mentally ill fercrissakes!

Even Bill Maher doesn't have too big a problem with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:09 PM

57. Exactly. Of all the things to have a hissy fit about...

How about the fact that we let 45,000 Americans die each year without health insurance. And none of them went to Yemen to hang out with terrorists. They died needless deaths here in the good ol' USA. Right now, we're trying to push through single payer in California, our nation's most populace state. I posted about that. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10403008 Not a single Reply. No one gives a shit. Everyone's too busy running around with their hair on fire over the accidental death in 2011 of the son of a committed terrorist, who was killed because he was literally standing with the targeted terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:52 PM

47. While I don't support the rhetoric used here against drone strikes, I find those who support them...

to be just as ridiculous, full of paranoia and hyperbole. The use of terms such as "war", "imminent danger", "mass-killings", "they want to destroy America/civilization", etc. I have to laugh. Can we have some perspective please? Listening to the pro-drone strike people, you would think there are armies of terrorists right off of American shores ready to invade, when this isn't the case at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:54 PM

50. The Terrorists have truly won.

And we are truly lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:58 PM

51. Debunking the debunking...

Question: So does anyone know who "Rmuse" is from Politicususa.com? Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:21 PM

58. Politicususa is usually a damn good site. This is appalling. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #58)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:44 PM

60. What is appalling?

My question? Well I, too, thought Politicususa was usually a damn good site. But this is not an article. It's an opinion piece strongly bent in one direction. When I come upon something like this, I like to know who the author is. It sounds like it came straight out of CentCom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:08 PM

63. Exactly, it's an opinion piece, and one propagandistic at best. I expect far better from them :(

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:14 PM

69. Thank you...

....this thread is sort of funky in a way. A bit twilight zonish or something. Like people are talking past each other, agreeing with others who disagree with them. It's really been hard to keep up with.

Well, thank you. Your answer indicates that I am not going out of my mind, that the piece that babylonsister has linked to should be questioned. When I read opinion, I like to know who the writer is, what their background is, who they have written for before... associations, previous employers, etc., etc. This person sounds like they have a ball in the game, if you get my drift. I gave up believing everything that comes across a computer screen a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:59 PM

53. The twice-signed NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or

 

representation (section 1021) and also makes propaganda perfectly legal. HR347 makes it a federal crime with up to 10 years in prison for protesting where secret service are present (Obama just signed lifetime SS protection for himself and W Bush). DHS are pushing for CISPA 2.0. The warrantless wiretap bill FISA was just signed into another five years of activity. The NDRP allows the government to sieze citizens property and land, IIRC, during time of war. Note that we are in a permanent, incredibly profitable state of war. DARPA have unclassified a 1.8 gigapixel drone which can ID a person from 20,000 feet (goodbye 4th Amendment). And if you've been watching what has been done to the OWS movement, but in juxtaposition, NOT to the corrupt wall streeters and banksters who nearly drove us into a second great depression (and that the vast majority of the economies subsequent recovery has gone to the very rich), you'll note that something does not smell right in this country. Not at all. Add the targeted killing of Americans and it smells far, far worse. 64 drone bases are being built within the US. 80 agencies have applied for drone permits. 50 countries around the world have helped the US rendition prisoners to secret prisons. Within the US, the so-called war on drugs has resulted in the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 46% of prisoners there from drug-related offences. For-profit prisons are advertising 90% occupancy rates to investors (this is just as wrong as when for-profit medical care/HMOs were denying life-saving operations because they would cut profits).

DHS, FBI, and federal agents have been monitoring and attending peaceful protests (1st Amendment-based protests). FBI has been ransacking activists' apartments for "literature". Anarchists and Occupiers are being taken as political prisoners in the northwest, Chicago, and Cleveland. DHS has been militarizing police departments and sheriff agencies with armored vehicles and military weaponry and tech, as well as making police departments into tentacles via the iWatch program. TSA were gropinating Super Bowl attendees and will be at Mardi Gras, as well as so-called VIPR teams on SF and Texas trains and buses. Did you know the government are now installing microphones on city buses, to monitor conversations? And that the military have been for more than a year, running co-ordinated drills over our cities (Miami, LA, etc.) with police departments (who are already DHS tools)? What the fuck. What the fuck.

Oh yeah, and this:

No suspicion necessary: DHS can still seize belongings without reason http://on.rt.com/sa5tz3

and this:

How Corporations Make Money from Prison Labor: They’re Happy to Have More Inmates

http://www.techyville.com/2013/02/news/how-corporations-make-money-from-prison-labor-theyre-happy-to-have-more-inmates/


I've posted stories on all of these items here in GD and in Occupy Underground, or seen them here. Be very very careful of begging to give away your freedoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:40 AM

112. Yet some DUers are saying ...

... the equivalent of, "So? What's the problem?"

Fucking unbelievable.

Not too mention that they completely side-step the fact that someone could be mis-identified as a "terrorist," instead relying on the red herring that since one is a terrorist, they have no due process rights.

Morality, adherence to the rule of law, ethics, have all gone out the window because someone's panic impulse is in overdrive. Sorry, but I don't want someone with a sensitive panic response making decisions of life and death. Not to mention that it's not only the president who can make these decisions, but other staff officials per the memos.

I see a lot of DUers becoming servile to authority much like their neocon counterparts.

ETA: I'm on my phone typing this by thumb or I would have a lot more to say. I did feel the need to respond, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #112)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:40 PM

132. Thank you. Indeed, a horrible line is being drawn here on DU amongst those who deny there is

 

anything resembling a problem and those with jaws hanging loose in disbelief at what is occurring.

Taken out-of-context but still very true in essence:

"...the...moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..."

~MLK, Jr. on those not supporting his Civil Rights movement and non-violent direct action.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/mlk-and-the-peace-process.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #132)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:20 AM

134. Great quote. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:00 PM

55. Wow DU is more neocon than neocons

Would you accept the use of drones to kill a White Supremacist who goes to hate rallies and does hate music? They speak out against America and wish to do harm to its citizens. In fact, I'm sure you can draw a direct causal link between White supremacist websites and literature to acts of terror. They've had a history of terrorism going back decades.

If a White supremacist moved out of the country and started spewing White Power and calling for white americans to kill their African American neighbors, would you simply bomb them, or would you give them due process? Would you attempt to capture them and put them on trial? Would you allow them their first amendment rights to spew whatever hate they want? Would they stop being Americans?

This is Bush 2.0, plain and simple.

I'm one of those "wacky" people you all love to hate, and I see you all as shills. Obama is President and then everything becomes permissible. The libertarians were right. When push comes to shove you're the same as Republicans, except you just have this antipathy towards the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:26 PM

59. Interesting that those who make that point don't seem to care how their absurdity hurts their case.

Whether they intend to or not, they don't seem to care that is appears that their FIRST PRIORITY is to GET Obama, why else would they damage their own case against drone programs????



http://www.democraticunderground.com/101797576#post11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:46 PM

61. Which is Orwellian?: Empirical analysis? or Pretending that what you don't know doesn't matter? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:26 PM

64. I have only found 2 dead Americans

al-alwaki and the kid.

Please proceed with the outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #64)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:53 AM

113. "Only two dead Americans."

At what point does it become unacceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:29 PM

65. Good thing that Obama will be President forever and no other country will ever have drones.

This site is officially lost. This country is officially lost.

There is no hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #65)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:21 PM

70. Honest question: Why can't a REFORMED citizenry watch-dog this thing themselves?

It all got like this, drone programs and all, because people have been lazy and ir-responsible "patriots". What if they fundamentally change their activities and involvement in their own leadership?

I'm always troubled by assumptions that the status quo lowest common denominator is the ONLY possibility, especially when we have tried little else and our current corruption has evolved into mortal opposition to available alternatives to drone programs, such as reforming the U.N. and committing to it and also reforming the World Court.

We continue to protect private Fast-and-Furious style assault weapons markets around the world and our government continues to be the biggest arms merchant on Earth; we bitch about the Big Brother New World Order housed at the U.N. and destabilizing all kinds of countries through the IMF; then we freak out about the World Court - AND NOW - bitch about drone programs that are the current response to all of that destabilization. Have you seen the increasing severity of World Drought projections for the next ten years? Destabilization squared coming right up.

The anti-drone critique is valid, but it invalidates itself too, by pretending that NOTHING is going to happen, or that what does happen doesn't matter and then mortally fighting anything else (the U.N. & the World Court) that could begin the steps toward better responses to the world's situations and then exacerbate the whole thing even worse by trying to destroy one of the few people we can trust in the middle of all of this, PO, and thus playing directly into the hands of his bosses and our owner/masters the world hegemony.

People want to have their cake and to eat it too and they want it served up on a silver platter without having to get up out of their sofa recliners and away from their tvs and changing their lives in order to make drones as un-necessary as possible. PO is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, so if I wer he, I'd listen respectfully then go with the best rational facts possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:46 AM

91. Other countries already do have drones and would still have them even if the US would magically

get rid of drones.

Actually, it's more the entire planet is lost (and not enough policies will be enacted in time to save it).

Like: 2045 - Smells like Venus...

Good effin luck, humans...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:31 PM

72. Thank you for posting this. The false equivalencies being bandied about...

... ignore some very elementary logical fallacies.

This has never been about a stealthy drone striking some innocent American family in Kansas - not by any reasonable measure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:35 PM

73. This is certainly a legitimate issue for debate/discussion

but let's not lose our heads over it. US Citizens throwing their lot in with AQ should expect that they are likely to be treated in a similar manner as other AQ members if they are out of this country beyond the reach of our law enforcement capabilities. The fact that they are *American citizens* shouldn't be able to be used as a "shield" against drone strikes in other countries where they are residing IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:01 PM

74. "The legalities of targeted drone killings aside, it is the critics’ rhetoric that bears scrutiny."

Um, no. It is the legality of targetted killing that bears scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #74)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

115. +10000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:41 PM

75. Yep. Considering how many people Bush, Cheney and other repukes have murdered,

drones are NOTHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:52 PM

77. The Fact Is The NDAA Gives Obama Unprecedented Power - No Getting Around The Facts

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:06 PM

78. I agree...they lost their rights when they turned against America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:17 AM

86. Then why are peaceful protesters being spied upon by DHS and the FBI? Why are federal agents

 

following Occupy demonstrators at parades? Why did this cop say extra police and federal agents were at the parade specifically because of Occupy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604

Why are DHS turning police departments into tentacles via the iWatch program, and handing them military gear, tech, and transports? Why is CISPA being resurrected? Why was FISA signed again? Why was the NDAA signed again, with its provision for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or representation (section 1021)?

DHS and FBI appear to be treating the Occupy Wall Street movement as at least potential terrorists (I believe they already classify us as that). When the definition of terrorist begins sliding against peaceful protesters using the Bill of Rights, I worry terribly. Occupy were systematically attacked, the camps cleared, for protesting real actual crime by the corporate elite, who have since gone utterly unpunished or regulated. 7400+ Occupiers have been arrested, some of them beaten bloody. For peacefully protesting real crime. DHS and FBI appear to think this is potential terrorism, and again, I worry terribly. Will the lines continue to blur? Don't suspect your neighbor, turn them in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:11 PM

79. OUr propaganda apparatus has gotten scarily close to Hitler's

proactive military intervention to protect the homeland from enemies devoted to destroying Americans

Those defending the murders are even adopting "protecting the homeland".

No American knows what goes into the decision-making process leading to a targeted drone strike, except that it is not President Obama deliberately targeting American citizens for death,

That part is a lie. The writer first says that it's OK to kill American citizens who have joined radical groups, then says that Obama is not deliberately targeting American citizens. Writers of propaganda pieces count on readers being too dumb to pick up on blatant inconsistencies.

this entire screed is downright creepy. They're actually trying to turn the US into Nazi Germany. And more and more people are stupid enough to buy it, as evidenced by this thread. It's the same ones who swallow the ridiculous excuses for killing the post office, doing away with public education, and "cutting Medicare to save it". 25 years of brainwashing have completely ruined what was up until then the best country in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #79)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:40 PM

81. GODWIN Alert!

Enough with the Nazis.

Nothing compares so drop it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:39 PM

80. lol

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:03 AM

83. Thank you for posting this.

The targeting of al Awlaki didn't bother me - it was obvious he was a traitor. But the memo that was released did bother me and I thought that it gave Obama too broad powers. Then I read The Magistrate's very thoughtful posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:13 AM

84. That's a strong piece there. Will bookmark it along with so many other things today.

The data on all of these things is almost overwhelming, so much happening now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:55 AM

88. Even if you trust Obama, which I do not, once you give the Presidency this open-ended authority,

there's no telling how the next guy might use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #88)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:58 AM

93. They already gave it to themselves, in 1947.

That's when the CIA was chartered. They've been carrying out extra-judicial executions, theoretically on the president's say-so, ever since. To Obama's credit he's attempting to introduce some long-overdue accountability, and predictably, getting blamed for another sordid mess he didn't invent.

And I agree, it's very problematic. That's never stopped us from cheering on James Bond and his stateside brethren but now seems like a good time to take a critical view at the whole business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:03 AM

89. Wow!

OP is absolute horseshit! No one here would put up with this shit from W,
and rightly show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:30 AM

90. There are landmark moments in history

 

The question is not whether or not this one person deserved to die. That's a distraction. Nor is the question whether this person deserved the protection of our constitution and the rule of law. The question is do you deserve these things, do your kids deserve them, do ALL men deserve them. You are not deciding on what rights apply to terrorists or enemies of the state, you are deciding what rights apply to everyone. You cannot abandon the one without destroying the other.

There are landmark moments in history. This is one of them. This is the moment when we decided we no longer care about the constitution or basic human rights, we no longer care about trials or juries or the rule of law. This is the moment the American people decided that they really don't have any problem with their own government killing them. Not spying on them, not patting them down in airports, actually killing them.

Landmark moments. This is when we gave up as a nation. We weren't conquered, we were scared, and I don't even have the words to express how sad and pathetic this moment is. I am embarrassed for my nation and my party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #90)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:15 AM

95. If this is one of them, it's because we're getting the truth

for once, or some of it, instead of just being lied to. But a lot of us are blaming the messenger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:08 AM

94. Drones are the lesser of many evils:

Carpet bombing, covert death squads, covert biological warfare, open war and all the rest. Obama promised transparency and that's what he's giving us, and it turns out we don't like the lesser evil, either. Fine, let's abolish the whole shootin' match and rename the DoD the Department of Peace. But the drone program is a modest part of a much bigger problem, distinguished mainly by the fact that we've been told about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:20 AM

96. I don't think he would want to kill an innocent American.

But he is human, not an all-knowing god. Mistakes happen, and sometimes people act on bad information. That is why having checks and balances in the decision-making process can't hurt. Further, it might prevent a situation where a future POTUS does want to harm an innocent American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:31 AM

97. not one of us would ever dream of complaining if some foreign entity came and did the same here -

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:05 AM - Edit history (1)

as long as as that foreign entity had a secret panel to decide who were legitimate targets and as long as any children they killed were only an accident - just what's the big deal anyway? If some Middle Eastern country were to carry out such operations inside America - would that not only make that Middle Eastern nation more popular among us all? Would it not cause us to abandon any thoughts of ever attacking them or egressing them in anyway? So why would Yemenis or whoever be any different? Obviously these drones can only be defusing tension and promoting good and will just as they would be if some Middle Eastern nation or political grouping were doing the same inside America. Why can't people understand this? Besides as long as these exercises are conducted by a Democratic Commander and Chief - we know they can be trusted. We will have plenty of time to complain when a Republican directs these operations.

Glad to see people on this forum keeping their moral compass unlike Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #97)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:11 PM

117. +1000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #97)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:26 PM

119. So

not one of us would ever dream of complaining if some foreign entity came and did the same here -

as long as as that foreign entity had a secret panel to decide who were legitimate targets and as long as any children they killed were only an accident - just what's the big deal anyway? If some Middle Eastern country were to carry out such operations inside America - would that not only make that Middle Eastern nation more popular among us all? Would it not cause us to abandon any thoughts of ever attacking them or egressing them in anyway? So why would Yemenis or whoever be any different? Obviously these drones can only be defusing tension and promoting good and will just as they would be if some Middle Eastern nation or political grouping were doing the same inside America. Why can't people understand this? Besides as long as these exercises are conducted by a Democratic Commander and Chief - we know they can be trusted. We will have plenty of time to complain when a Republican directs these operations.

Glad to see people on this forum keeping their moral compass unlike Republicans.

...it's your assumption that these strikes are being carried out without the other country's approval? I know there is an objection to civilian casualties, but the countries involved have been cooperating with the United States in fighting terrorism.

Still, let's flesh out your hypothetical, assuming that the other country decides not to start a war with the United States.

Americans are actively plotting against China. A group of them actually bombed facilities in China, and are now back in hiding in the United States. The U.S. government is dragging its feet to aid the government of China in finding the terrorists.

China learns via Canadian intelligence that the group is in a mountainous, heavily wooded and lawless region of the United States, plotting more acts of terrorism. The U.S. government tacitly agrees to allow China to search the area and apprehend or kill the suspects.

Yeah, it's a ridculous hypothetical, but so is the premise upon which it's based. Also, who here would be cheering Americans for plotting to bomb China?

The more likely scenario would be law enforcement or if determined that the U.S. government were involved, war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=285554

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #119)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:40 PM

124. that's what I am saying. If some Middle Eastern country or perhaps a Latin American country were to

carry out military strikes inside the United States against people who they blame for killing or being complicit in killing their people and if some American civilians were killed as "collateral damage" perhaps at a wedding party or something like that-obviously the U.S. government would support it and so would most Americans. No doubt that country would become very popular. Let's say Iran did something like that. That would no doubt promote such good will between Americans and the Iranians or instill a bit of respect - it would virtually remove any possibility of the U.S. every going to war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:10 AM

99. It depends on the definition:

People keep assuming that Al Qaeda operators are civilians, yet this was a folly of the Bush administration, to avoid giving them legal protections required by the United Nations. In reality, Al Qaeda fighters are soldiers, not civilians, and the standard military rules of engagement should apply - sniper rifles and drone strikes are both perfectly acceptable against enemy soldiers.

What the Bush administration did was highly illegal, in United States law and international law, but don't let his 'legal decision' cloud your judgement - Taliban fighters are hostile soldiers, nothing more, nothing less, and they should be treated as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:16 AM

101. Here's a nice pastry for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:50 AM

102. Here is a synopsis of the argument.

1. We have enemies (so we have to kill them).

2. Some enemies are American and some enemies are probably tough to capture.

3. No one knows why or how the targets are chosen, but I am sure it is for the best of reasons, really.

4. If an American is bad, he automatically becomes NOT an American.

5. In the real world, Constitutional Rights are tough to provide. This is the real world. Return to #1 above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #102)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:15 PM

118. Boom, goes the dynamite!

No, pun intended. Great post, Bonobo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 08:31 AM

103. **his civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.”**

"Due process" is what determines whether a person is actually guilty of the charges against him.

The evidence against al-Awlaki may have been overwhelming, but how much gray area is involved with other extrajudicial executions?

How many innocent people have been targeted, and how many innocent people have become "collateral damage"?

I don't doubt our president has directed there must be a high level of confidence before putting someone on a kill list, but evidence can be misinterpreted or fabricated anywhere along the chain from informant to CIA headquarters.

An actual "imminent threat" is cause for action, but the redefinition of the word "imminent" in the recently uncovered memo is the kind of Orwellian doublespeak I would expect from the administration of GW Bush.

I believe our government should have this capability in extreme circumstances and as a last resort, but I am very concerned that extrajudicial executions will fly further and further under that threshold as precedents are established and subsequent administrations are tempted to make wider use of it.

And I also question whether such killings are breeding more moles than we're whacking, while alienating our friends in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:17 AM

104. that author should speak for themselves

my problems with the drone policy don't involve any kind of image of Obama, I am not preoccupied like Rmuse is with Obama's personality. My problems with the drone policy are with its legality, and with the precedent it is setting, and with whether it is going to backfire on us.

It's so frustrating how all these serious issues get sucked into the useless preoccupation with Obama's personality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:07 AM

106. The rhetoric is designed

to avoid the real debate. It includes everything from portraying Obama as just like Bush only better at it to screaming that Obama is going to kill Americans. If you don't agree with the rhetoric, you're immoral. Yet organizations like the ACLU focus on the issue of trying to sort out the process, and even they will admit that there are instances where lethal force is justified. The issue is who gets to define those instances.

The issue is real and it's not going away. In 2002, another U.S. citizen was killed in Yemen, though it was originally stated that he was not the target.

Kamal Derwish (also Ahmed Hijazi) was an American citizen killed by the CIA as part of a covert targeted killing mission in Yemen on November 5, 2002. The CIA used an RQ-1 Predator drone to shoot a Hellfire missile, destroying the vehicle in which he was driving with five others.

Derwish had been closely linked to the growing religious fundamentalism of the Lackawanna Six, a group of Muslim-Americans who had attended lectures in his apartment near Buffalo, New York.

That an American citizen had been killed by the CIA without trial drew criticism. American authorities quickly back-pedaled on their stories celebrating the death of Derwish, instead noting they had been unaware he was in the car which they said had been targeted for its other occupants, including Abu Ali al-Harithi, believed to have played some role in the USS Cole bombing.

<...>

On November 3, 2002, Derwish and al-Harithi were part of a convoy of vehicles moving through the Yemeni desert trying to meet someone, unaware that their contact was cooperating with US forces to lure them into a trap. As their driver spoke on satellite phone, trying to figure out why the two parties couldn't see each other if they were both at the rendezvous point, a Predator drone launched a Hellfire missile, killing everybody in the vehicle. CIA officers in Djibouti had received clearance for the attack from director George Tenet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish


Human Rights Watch issued this statement about the target:

The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html

It reiterates the conditions for action ("al-Qaeda role," "no control over area" and "no reasonable law enforcement alternative," but it also stresses the risk of a slippery slope, which is the argument that claims: Even if you trust Obama, would you trust the next Republican President?

Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #106)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:59 AM

114. I think President Obama is trying to establish those parameters. That was the point of the memo.

And I think the killing of Al Awlaki fits into the conditions that Human Rights Watch calls for ("al-Qaeda role," "no control over area" and "no reasonable law enforcement alternative"). But the Naderites and Obama haters here saw only an opportunity to bash Obama. To a hammer, everything is a nail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:48 AM

107. Al-Awlaki is somebody I'd hardly consider "innocent"- based on the available evidence

the fact that he is, legally, a US citizen seems to me to be a moot point when openly allying yourself with a terrorist group like AQ outside of the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:58 AM

108. thank you for posting this!

its amazing how quickly people turn their back on Pres. Obama- and that also over a known terrorist...smh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:04 PM

116. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:36 PM

120. Read up on this. Why isn't there a court held in absentia?

How hard would it be to present the evidence for all to see and question?

America has gone lazy in its pursuit of justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Trial by Fox news?


In January 2013, it was announced by Fox News that FBI documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request showed possible connections between al-Awlaki and the 9/11 attacks. According to Judicial Watch, the documents show that the FBI knew that al-Awlaki had bought three tickets for three of the hijackers to fly into Florida and into Las Vegas. Judicial Watch further asserted that al-Awlaki "was a central focus of the FBI's investigation of 9/11. They show he wasn't cooperative. And they show that he was under surveillance."

When queried by Fox News, the FBI denied having evidence connecting al-Awlaki and the 9/11 attacks: "The FBI cautions against drawing conclusions from redacted FOIA documents. The FBI and investigating bodies have not found evidence connecting Anwar al-Awlaki and the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. The document referenced does not link Anwar al-Awlaki with any purchase of airline tickets for the hijackers."


The issue seems to be "Inciting violence" but it seems Glen Beck could also qualify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:44 PM

122. Any male person 16 or older killed by a drone strike is declared a legitimate target.

This policy is criminal, dangerous, unconstitutional, and will come back to haunt us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 06:31 PM

128. The policy is still bullshit. No way at all to justify

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread