# Drones in the Press .. again.



## K-man (Feb 6, 2013)

> *Killing of Americans by drones 'is lawful'
> 
> *
> WASHINGTON: The White House has defended drone strikes on al-Qaeda suspects, including Americans, as legal, ethical and wise, and says they comply with US law and the constitution.
> ...


Interesting concept.  When are one country's laws and constitution legally binding one another  autonomous, sovereign nation?   If China were to send drones into the US to knock off a few Chinese dissidents, that would obviously be legal, ethical and wise?  Mmm! The term, "Can of Worms", springs to mind.    :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Feb 6, 2013)

There would be a lot more talk about due process were another country to assassinate one of their citizens here...
or, you know, if a Republican was in office...


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 6, 2013)

As long as we are giving them a **** load of money. They coming along for the ride. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man (Feb 8, 2013)

Today's offering.



> John Brennan's bunker is a soundproofed, windowless suite in the White House basement where, as one senator put it, Barack Obama's counter-terrorism chief "decides each day who he's going to execute".
> 
> 
> Behind guarded doors, Brennan &#8211; the "priestly figure" nominated by Obama to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency &#8211; draws together the lists of suspected terrorists for assassination by drone in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. They are signed off by the president on what have become known darkly as "kill list Tuesdays".
> ...


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 8, 2013)

I think it could be considered as a "necesary evil" in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war. Presidents have difficult decisions to make and today for than we are able to what they are doing.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I think it could be considered as a "necesary evil"


 The outright violation of an American citizen's sixth 





> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a  speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district  wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have  been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and  cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against  him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,  and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


 and 14th amendment rights 





> nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,  without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


 in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war. [/quote] Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?





> Presidents have difficult decisions to make and today for than we are able to what they are doing.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.


----------



## K-man (Feb 8, 2013)

Under certain circumstances, I could condone the use of drones. I would be happy to hear it described as_ 'a necessary evil_' or _'action we have to take to ensure the safety of our people'._

It might be considered 'ethical' by some and it might be considered 'wise' by others. Some may even consider it 'ethical and wise'. What I find difficulty getting around is 'legal'.   :asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 8, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The outright violation of an American citizen's sixth  and 14th amendment rights  in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war.


 Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?
That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.[/QUOTE]

I saw it talking about forein policy in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia... where did it say America?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 8, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The outright violation of an American citizen's sixth  and 14th amendment rights  in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war.


 Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?
That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about when we took out the head of the Yemen Alqueda who was an American born citizen?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man (Feb 8, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war. Presidents have difficult decisions to make and today for than we are able to what they are doing.


The Iraq 'War' was at least a war even if undeclared. (More accuately it was an invasion.) Even in Afghanistan the use of drones could just be considered an extension of the ground 'war' (again undeclared), same as the use of aircraft. But drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemin are conducted under the auspices of the CIA. There is no war, there are no troops on the ground and both countries are sovereign, if unstable, nations.   :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?
> That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.



Are you talking about when we took out the head of the Yemen Alqueda who was an American born citizen?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

Yes, who, although being scum, was an American Citizen whose 6th and 14th Amendment rights were unequivocally violated by the order of the President of the United States.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

He denounced his citizenship publicly in at least one of his rants. He declared Jihad against America. He was more than a traitor, he was a terrist that was hell bent on killing Americans. He had no American rights.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> He denounced his citizenship publicly in at least one of his rants. He declared Jihad against America. He was more than a traitor, he was a terrist that was hell bent on killing Americans. He had no American rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



According to you and the current administration, no. According to the US Constitution, i.e., the highest law of the land, he had a right to face his accusers and to due process...


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

He was ALQUEDA and denounced his citizenship! That's just another reason why your party is in the toilet. You hate the president so much, you rather try and protect the rights of terrorists. Sheesh, were you also worried for the American taliban when we caught him? BS

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> He was ALQUEDA and denounced his citizenship! That's just another reason why your party is in the toilet. You hate the president so much, you rather try and protect the rights of terrorists. Sheesh, were you also worried for the American taliban when we caught him? BS
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Your hypocrisy is astounding. You wring your hands over water boarding and excuse outright murder. You've screeched about abusing the rights of terrorists and ignore the blatantly unconstitutional killing of an American citizen.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> He was ALQUEDA and denounced his citizenship! That's just another reason why your party is in the toilet. You hate the president so much, you rather try and protect the rights of terrorists. Sheesh, were you also worried for the American taliban when we caught him? BS
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Did he follow the legal requirements to renounce citizenship?

If he didn't he was still a citizen



THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).

B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

A person seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship must renounce all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships. *In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon&#8217;s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because he wanted to retain the right to live in the United States while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen.*


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

I understand the rights issue. He was wanted by Yemen and the US, there was no way he could walk in and formally renounce his citizenship. Anyone sticking up for the rights of someone like him makes me puke!

He was a terrorist with Jihad against us. I'm a patriot and would of pulled the trigger myself given the chance. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I understand the rights issue. He was wanted by Yemen and the US, there was no way he could walk in and formally renounce his citizenship. Anyone sticking up for the rights of someone like him makes me puke!
> 
> He was a terrorist with Jihad against us. I'm a patriot and would of pulled the trigger myself given the chance.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


I guess its OK until your on the wrong side of who ever is running the show. Then its not so good anymore.  The point have having rights is so they are applied to everyone regardless so if that makes you puke I'm sorry.  I've defended peoples rights that have made me sick to my stomach plenty of times.  Its just the way it is.

  We have file cabinets full of warrants I guess as long as they are wanted its cool to go blow them up.  

And before you start that "your party". Crap I'd be against this if it was Bush Clinton Bush Reagan Carter ect ect ect..................
I do find it amusing that your "party" however holds Bush at fault for a war that congress agreed to, yet give Obama a pass for killing US citizens in countries were not even fighting in.


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2013)

From Legalinsurrection...

http://legalinsurrection.com/



> *Every now and then someone at The New Yorker writes something witty*
> 
> 
> Posted by William A. Jacobson    Saturday, February 9, 2013 at 1:45pm
> ...


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess its OK until your on the wrong side of who ever is running the show. Then its not so good anymore.  The point have having rights is so they are applied to everyone regardless so if that makes you puke I'm sorry.  I've defended peoples rights that have made me sick to my stomach plenty of times.  Its just the way it is.
> 
> We have file cabinets full of warrants I guess as long as they are wanted its cool to go blow them up.
> 
> ...



Haha...That party quote was reality. The Republican party is in the toilet. They are behind over 20% of voters in the age group 18-30 and they overwhelming lost big in the Hispanic vote. In the next to elections they are set to lose even more if they doin't wake up.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Haha...That party quote was reality. The Republican party is in the toilet. They are behind over 20% of voters in the age group 18-30 and they overwhelming lost big in the Hispanic vote. In the next to elections they are set to lose even more if they doin't wake up.



1st its not my party I didn't vote for Romney.  The republican party needs to go away.  They are no different then the Dems anymore.  Name one thing different between Obama and Bush.  Everything's the same this country is no different now then it was 6 years ago.  
 And 2nd:
Great way to deflect from the whole killing American citizens thing. " Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

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

U.S. officials say that as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001-2002), which had 3,000 members, al-Aulaqi spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members.[SUP][20][/SUP] In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the mother of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008-2009 before the Fort Hood shootings.[SUP][21][22][/SUP] During the period of Al-Alwaki's later radical period after 2006-2007, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner.[SUP][23][24][25][/SUP] Al-Alwaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

The Yemeni government began trying him _in absentia_ in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive."[SUP][26][27][/SUP] U.S. officials alleged that in 2009, *al-Aulaqi was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[SUP][28][29][/SUP] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[SUP][30][31][/SUP]*

From 19962000, Al-Alwaki served as imam of the Masjid Ar-Ribat al-Islami mosque at the edge of San Diego, California, where he had a following of 200300 people.[SUP][1][10][50][54][60][66][/SUP] U.S. officials would later allege that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who became the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, attended his sermons and met personally with Aulaqi during this period. Hazmi later lived in Northern Virginia and attended Aulaqi's mosque there. The _9/11 Commission Report_ said that the hijackers "reportedly respected [al-Awlaki] as a religious figure".[SUP][20][50][52][66][/SUP] While in San Diego, Al-Aulaqi was known for the time he spent with youth, for his interest in fishing, for his discussions of travels with friends, and for a popular and lucrative series of lectures that he recorded.[SUP][50][/SUP]

When police investigating the 9/11 attacks raided the Hamburg, Germany, apartment of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, they found the telephone number of Al-Aulaqi among bin al-Shibh's personal contacts.[SUP][10][54][/SUP] The FBI interviewed al-Aulaqi four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks.[SUP][1][50][/SUP] One detective later told the 9/11 Commission he believed al-Aulaqi "was at the center of the 9/11 story". And an FBI agent said,"if anyone had knowledge of the plot, it would have been" him, since "someone had to be in the U.S. and keep the hijackers spiritually focused".[SUP][50][/SUP] One 9/11 Commission staff member said: "Do I think he played a role in helping the hijackers here, knowing they were up to something? Yes.

Al-Awlaki has provided al-Qaeda members in Yemen with the protection of his powerful tribe, the Awlakis, against the government. The tribal code required it to protect those who seek refuge and assistance. This imperative has greater force when the person is a member of the tribe, or a tribesman's friend. The tribe's motto is "We are the sparks of Hell; whomever interferes with us will be burned."[SUP][109[/SUP]

Sought by Yemeni authorities with regard to an investigation into his al-Qaeda ties, al-Aulaqi avoided detection. According to his father, al-Aulaqi disappeared and went into hiding in approximately March 2009. By December 2009, al-Aulaqi was on the Yemen government's most-wanted list.[SUP][111][/SUP] He was believed to be hiding in Yemen's rugged Shabwa or Mareb regions, which are part of the so-called "triangle of evil." (It is known as an area attracting al-Qaeda militants seeking refuge among local tribes who are unhappy with Yemen's central government).[SUP][112][/SUP]

FBI agents had identified al-Aulaqi as a known, important "senior recruiter for al Qaeda", and a spiritual motivator.[SUP][63][130][/SUP]
Al-Aulaqi's name came up in a dozen terrorism plots in the U.S., UK, and Canada. The cases included suicide bombers in the 2005 London bombings, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, the _jihadist_ killer in the 2009 Little Rock military recruiting office shooting, and the 2010 Times Square bomber. In each case the suspects were devoted to al-Aulaqi's message, which they listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs.[SUP][20][46][50][131][/SUP]
Al-Aulaqi's recorded lectures were also an inspiration to Islamist fundamentalists who comprised at least six terror cells in the UK through 2009.[SUP][96][/SUP] Michael Finton (Talib Islam), who attempted in September 2009, to bomb the Federal Building and the adjacent offices of Congressman Aaron Schock in Springfield, Illinois, admired al-Aulaqi and quoted him on his Myspace page.[SUP][132][/SUP] In addition to his website, al-Aulaqi had a Facebook fan page[SUP][133][/SUP] with a substantial percentage of "fans" from the U.S., many of whom were high school students.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Al-Aulaqi influenced several other extremists to join terrorist organizations overseas and to carry out terrorist attacks in their home countries. Mohamed Alessa and Carlos Almonte&shy;, two American citizens from New Jersey who attempted to travel to Somalia in June 2010 to join Al Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group based there&shy;allegedly watched several al-Aulaqi videos and sermons in which al-Aulaqi warned of future attacks against Americans in the U.S. and abroad.[SUP][134][/SUP] Zachary Chesser (nicknamed Abu Talha al-Amrikee), another American citizen who was arrested for attempting to provide material support to Al Shabaab, also told federal authorities that he watched online videos featuring al-Aulaqi and that he exchanged several e-mails with al-Aulaqi.[SUP][135][136][/SUP] In July 2010, Paul Rockwood pleaded guilty to, and received an eight-year prison sentence for, assembling a hit list of 15 targets for assassination or bomb attacks within the U.S. of people who he felt had desecrated Islam.[SUP][136][/SUP] Rockwood admitted to having become a "strict adherent to the violent _jihad_-promoting ideology of cleric [Awlaki]", which "included a personal conviction that it was [Rockwood's] religious responsibility to exact revenge by death on anyone who desecrated Islam", and following al-Aulaqi's ideology, "including devotion to [Awlaki's] violence-promoting works, _Constants on the Path to Jihad_ and _44 Ways to Jihad_".[SUP][136][/SUP]
Fort Hood shootings suspect Nidal Malik Hasan was investigated by the FBI after intelligence agencies intercepted at least 18 e-mails between him and al-Aulaqi between December 2008 and June 2009.[SUP][139][/SUP] Even before the contents of the e-mails were revealed, terrorism expert Jarret Brachman said that Hasan's contacts with al-Aulaqi should have raised "huge red flags". According to Brachman, al-Aulaqi is a major influence on radical English-speaking _jihadis_ internationally.[SUP][140][/SUP] _The Wall Street Journal_ reported that "There is no indication Mr. Awlaki played a direct role in any of the attacks, and he has never been indicted in the U.S."[SUP][109][/SUP]
In one of the e-mails, Hasan wrote al-Aulaqi: "I can't wait to join you [in the afterlife]". "It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up, or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind." Hasan also asked al-Aulaqi when _jihad_ is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[SUP][21][/SUP] In the months before the attacks, Hasan increased his contacts with al-Aulaqi to discuss how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of law authorities.[SUP][139][/SUP]
In "44 Ways to Support _Jihad_", another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Aulaqi encouraged others to "fight _jihad_", and explained how to give money to the _mujahideen_ or their families after they've died. Al-Aulaqi's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of _Jihad_".[SUP][144][/SUP] Also that month, *he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies."[SUP][143][/SUP] He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not."[SUP][143][/SUP] On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."[SUP][143][/SUP]* In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World", al-Aulaqi wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against [American soldiers], and blessed are those shuhada [martyrs] who are killed by them."[SUP][144][145][/SUP]

Al-Aulaqi and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the convicted al-Qaeda attempted bomber of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25, 2009, had contacts according to a number of sources. In January 2010, CNN reported that U.S. "security sources" said that there is concrete evidence that al-Aulaqi was Abdulmutallab's recruiter and one of his trainers, and met with him prior to the attack.[SUP][153][/SUP] In February 2010, al-Aulaqi admitted in an interview published in _al-Jazeera_ that he taught and corresponded with Abdulmutallab, but denied having ordered the attack.[SUP][154][155][156][/SUP]

In January 2010, White House lawyers considered the legality of attempting to kill al-Aulaqi, given his U.S. citizenship. Opportunities to do so "may have been missed" because of legal questions surrounding such an attack.[SUP][199][/SUP] But on February 4, 2010, _New York Daily News_ reported that al-Aulaqi was "now on a targeting list signed off on by the Obama administration".[SUP][200][/SUP]
On April 6, _The New York Times_ also reported that President Obama had authorized the killing of al-Aulaqi.[SUP][33][/SUP] The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.[SUP][33][/SUP] *Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[SUP][33][/SUP] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.[SUP][33][/SUP] The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.[SUP][33][/SUP] In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.[SUP][33][/SUP] *
*The powerful al-Awalik tribe responded "We warn against cooperating with America to kill Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki. We will not stand by idly and watch."[SUP][201][/SUP] Al-Aulaqi's tribe wrote that it would "not remain with arms crossed if a hair of Anwar al-Awlaki is touched, or if anyone plots or spies against him. Whoever risks denouncing our son (Awlaki) will be the target of Al-Awalik weapons,"* and gave warning "against co-operating with the Americans" in the capture or killing of al-Awlaki.[SUP][203][/SUP] Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, the Yemeni foreign minister, followed by announcing that the Yemeni government had not received any evidence from the U.S., and that "Anwar al-Awlaki has always been looked at as a preacher rather than a terrorist and shouldn't be considered as a terrorist unless the Americans have evidence that he has been involved in terrorism".[SUP][203][/SUP]
In a video clip bearing the imprint of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, issued on April 16 in al-Qaeda's monthly magazine _Sada Al-Malahem_, al-Aulaqi said: "What am I accused of? Of calling for the truth? Of calling for _jihad_ for the sake of Allah? Of calling to defend the causes of the Islamic nation?".*[SUP][206][/SUP]** In the video he also praises both Abdulmutallab and Hasan, and describes both as his "students".[SUP][207][/SUP]*
A few days later, the United Nations Security Council placed al-Aulaqi on its UN Security Council Resolution 1267 list of individuals associated with al-Qaeda, saying in its summary of reasons that he is a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was involved in recruiting and training camps.[SUP][211][/SUP] That required U.N. member states to freeze his assets, impose a travel ban on him, and prevent weapons from landing in his hands.[SUP][212][/SUP] The following week, the Canadian government ordered financial institutions to look for and seize any property linked to al-Aulaqi, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's senior counter-terrorism officer Gilles Michaud singled out al-Aulaqi as a "major, major factor in radicalization".[SUP][211][/SUP] In September 2010, Jonathan Evans, the Director General of the United Kingdom's domestic security and counter-intelligence agency (MI5), said that al-Aulaqi was the West's Public Enemy No 1.[SUP][213][/SUP]
Al-Aulaqi was charged _in absentia_ in Sana'a, Yemen, on November 2 with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda.[SUP][216][/SUP] Ali al-Saneaa, the head of the prosecutor's office, announced the charges as part of a trial against another man, Hisham Assem, who had been accused of killing a Frenchman, also saying that al-Aulaqi corresponded with Assem for months, encouraging him to kill foreigners.[SUP][216][217][/SUP] The prosecutor said:
Yesterday a regular visitor of bars and discotheques in America ... Awlaki today has become the catalyst for shedding the blood of foreigners and security forces. He was chosen by Al-Qaeda to be the lead in many of their criminal operations in Yemen. Awlaki is a figure prone to evil devoid of any conscience, religion, or law.[SUP][218][/SUP]
*In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Aulaqi called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation", and overthrow Arab leaders. He said that no fatwa (special clerical ruling) is required to kill Americans: "Don't consult with anyone in fighting the Americans, fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils."[SUP][31][220][/SUP] That month, Intelligence Research Specialist Kevin Yorke of the New York Police Department's Counterterrorism Division called him "the most dangerous man in the world".[SUP][221][222][/SUP]*
United States officials stated that the "imminent threat" international legal standard was used to add al-Aulakqi's name to the C.I.A.'s list of people targeted for killing.[SUP][33][/SUP]


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> 1st its not my party



When I made the initial quoute about your party I was responding to Big Don, not you, you jumped after that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

So because the CIA puts u on the targeted for kill list it makes it OK to kill an American citizen and his American citizen juvenile son?

I have no doubt he was a bad guy and deserved to die but we have a legal system for that.


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2013)

> So because the CIA puts u on the targeted for kill list it makes it OK to kill an American citizen and his American citizen juvenile son?



No, it is okay because our beloved President decided it was okay for the C.I.A. to kill these people since he goes through the list and okays the killings...and according to Chris Rock, obama is our  boss, and barak and michelle are our father and mother...they know what's best.

Remember...Bush used drones because he was evil...obama uses drones to kill people because he loves us and knows what's best for us...

So any complaints about what he does because he loves us needs to be stopped...or a new name will be added to that list...


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2013)

And the media is in the tank on this one too...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/09/newsweeks-eleanor-clift-drones-are-blessing



> So hawkish on this issue was Clift that she a few minutes later actually debated Pat Buchanan who maybe for the first time in their history together took a more dovish position than she did.
> The obvious conclusion from what we've seen this week is the Obama-loving media have gone so far in the tank for this president that they're willing to throw all their once strongly-held beliefs overboard to defend him.
> There's no way in the world Clift would have talked about a killing machine being "a blessing" with Reagan or Bushes Junior or Senior in the White House.
> That she could make such comments with a straight face indicates just how far Obama's media are willing to go to protect him from scrutiny.
> ...



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...eanor-clift-drones-are-blessing#ixzz2KR9VgNzK


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

billc said:


> Remember...Bush used drones because he was evil...obama uses drones to kill people because he loves us and knows what's best for us...



I 've never heard anyone ever say that. Complain about Bush and the wars yes but that's behind us now. We can't redo any of it. Today when I talk about Bush it is usually in response to the Obama bashing, although I am really trying to leave that alone. I rather just talk about your party instead. 

Seriously, you put a lot of words in my parties mouth and you make me wonder where it comes from.  

As long as the Obama bashing continues, then I guess everything/everybody is fair game... :thumbup:



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2013)

> Maddow pressed Stewart to explain how MSNBC was as responsible as Fox News for stifling debate in the country.
> &#8220;But what is the lefty way of shutting down [debate],&#8221; Maddow asked.
> &#8220;You&#8217;ve said, &#8216;Bush is war criminal.&#8217; Now that may be technically true. In my world &#8216;war criminal&#8217; is Pol Pot or the Nuremberg trials,&#8221; Stewart replied.
> &#8220;I think that&#8217;s such an incendiary charge that when you put it into a conversation: &#8216;Well technically he is.&#8217; Well that may be right but it feels like a conversation stopper, not a conversation starter.&#8221;





Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d9M2)


----------



## K-man (Feb 9, 2013)

billc said:


> And the media is in the tank on this one too...
> 
> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/09/newsweeks-eleanor-clift-drones-are-blessing
> 
> ...


Which brings us back to the beginning.



> But, they bring all sorts of ethical and moral concerns, and there should be some sort of judicial review. And t*he program that appears to be the most troubling is the one run by the CIA*. And that&#8217;s the one that&#8217;s been targeting Afghanistan and Pakistan.​
> 
> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...eanor-clift-drones-are-blessing#ixzz2KRxMMCXx​


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

There was 0% chance of arresting him. The alternative would be to let him kill or try to kill Americans or continue to influence other Americans to kill Americans and anyone that sides with us.

And we know as soon as an American is killed...it's Obamas fault like everything else. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## geezer (Feb 9, 2013)

Getting away from the partisan perspectives for a minute, I'd like to ask a question to any of you who may be or have been LEOs, prosecutors or have some legal experience: 

How does law treat _domestic cases_ when a known murderer and conspirator involved. If a LEO such as a member of a SWAT has a momentary clear shot at a wanted, murderous individual like the "Unibomber" or "Washington Sniper" but is unable to physically apprehend him, does he have to let the killer get away and certainly endanger the lives of more people, or can the LEO get approval to legally pull the trigger to protect the public?  

_If_ a LEO can get approval to shoot a known murderer and conspirator domestically, then accomplishing similar ends with a drone abroad is not so ethically inconsistent. On the other hand, if here in America LEOs cannot exercise such extreme actions even when the target will continue to endanger the lives of others, then we have a disturbing inconsistency.

Now my "knowledge" of police procedures in such cases is virtually nil having been gleaned from news reports, TV shows' and movies. A little knowledgeable input would be appreciated.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 9, 2013)

geezer said:


> Getting away from the partisan perspectives for a minute, I'd like to ask a question to any of you who may be or have been LEOs, prosecutors or have some legal experience:
> 
> How does law treat _domestic cases_ when a known murderer and conspirator involved. If a LEO such as a member of a SWAT has a momentary clear shot at a wanted, murderous individual like the "Unibomber" or "Washington Sniper" but is unable to physically apprehend him, does he have to let the killer get away and certainly endanger the lives of more people, or can the LEO get approval to legally pull the trigger to protect the public?
> 
> ...


AFAIK, LEO's cannot summarily kill wanted people because they would be "impossible to catch". When LEO's kill people, that person MUST be AT THAT MOMENT trying to harm or kill someone, i.e., shoplifters, etc not likely to die in hails of gunfire.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

geezer said:


> Getting away from the partisan perspectives for a minute, I'd like to ask a question to any of you who may be or have been LEOs, prosecutors or have some legal experience:
> 
> How does law treat _domestic cases_ when a known murderer and conspirator involved. If a LEO such as a member of a SWAT has a momentary clear shot at a wanted, murderous individual like the "Unibomber" or "Washington Sniper" but is unable to physically apprehend him, does he have to let the killer get away and certainly endanger the lives of more people, or can the LEO get approval to legally pull the trigger to protect the public?
> 
> ...



National security matters are a completely differant ball game where some dummies think terrorists actually deserve a day in court and until they get that day in court it's business as usual, KILL MORE AMERICANS.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

geezer said:


> Getting away from the partisan perspectives for a minute, I'd like to ask a question to any of you who may be or have been LEOs, prosecutors or have some legal experience:
> 
> How does law treat _domestic cases_ when a known murderer and conspirator involved. If a LEO such as a member of a SWAT has a momentary clear shot at a wanted, murderous individual like the "Unibomber" or "Washington Sniper" but is unable to physically apprehend him, does he have to let the killer get away and certainly endanger the lives of more people, or can the LEO get approval to legally pull the trigger to protect the public?
> 
> ...



You can used deadly force against a fleeing felon if you believe his escape will create immediate danger to others.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> National security matters are a completely differant ball game where some dummies think terrorists actually deserve a day in court and until they get that day in court it's business as usual, KILL MORE AMERICANS.


Its not a different ball game.  Its the same ball game.  A citizen is a citizen and protected by the Constitution.  Your excuse that they just couldnt get him is wrong.  They didn't even try.  They went in and "attempted" to get Bin Laden who was not a citizen.  They just blew up a citizen and his family Including his child.  Like I said I'm glad he's dead he deserved to die but he had rights.  We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing who's rights count and who's dont.  Its all fun and games and ha ha ha until the govt decides your rights don't matter either


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

The CIA and covert ops, black op, whatever it is called is nothing new. Is Obama going to get blamed for inventing that?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> The CIA and covert ops, black op, whatever it is called is nothing new. Is Obama going to get blamed for inventing that?


Like I said I'd disagree no matter who was the president your the one defending the "party". I'm critical of the govt as a whole regardless of who's in charge in this case it should have been done differently.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

Everyone has armchair opinions about how to do everything better, but when it comes to the Commander in Chiefs job, nobody really knows until they sit in the seat. Presidents have repeatedly said that. There must be something to it...


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Everyone has armchair opinions about how to do everything better, but when it comes to the Commander in Chiefs job, nobody really knows until they sit in the seat. Presidents have repeatedly said that. There must be something to it...


It doesn't matter how hard it is.  US Citizens have rights just because its hard is not an excuse.  Your OK with killing Americans without due process.  I'm not.  It is what it is.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> It doesn't matter how hard it is.  US Citizens have rights just because its hard is not an excuse.  Your OK with killing Americans without due process.  I'm not.  It is what it is.



We agree on something it is what it is, thats about it. 

I'm not OK with the govt killing Americans but special cicumstances come front and center and hard decisions have to be made. Americans turned whackjob will sometimes be taken out. It happens in the US too but here they hold up with a lot of guns and we have storm them and they die "without do process."  It's not the same over seas but the bottom line is they are killing Americans and anyone else who do not support them. That guy was wanted by Yemen and the US and we were helping Yemen fight AlQueda. It's not as cut and dry as it is here.

In the case of foreign lands, I believe due process can't always be achieved...an enemy of the state is just that, an enemy of the state. The stakes are differant than stateside and sometimes must be treated differantly. Either he will kill or we will stop him. The choices are not easy.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> We agree on something it is what it is, thats about it.
> 
> I'm not OK with the govt killing Americans but special cicumstances come front and center and hard decisions have to be made. Americans turned whackjob will sometimes be taken out. It happens in the US too but here they hold up with a lot of guns and we have storm them and they die "without do process."  It's not the same over seas but the bottom line is they are killing Americans and anyone else who do not support them. That guy was wanted by Yemen and the US and we were helping Yemen fight AlQueda. It's not as cut and dry as it is here.
> 
> In the case of foreign lands, I believe due process can't always be achieved...an enemy of the state is just that, an enemy of the state. The stakes are differant than stateside and sometimes must be treated differantly. Either he will kill or we will stop him. The choices are not easy.



So as long as the govt classifys you as a wack job. Its OK to blow them up without attempting due process.  Got it.  We should have tried that at Waco could have kept from loosing 4 ATF agents.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> It doesn't matter how hard it is. US Citizens have rights just because its hard is not an excuse. Your OK with killing Americans without due process. I'm not. It is what it is.



You're right, it could be the thin end of the wedge, history has taught us that. Setting a precedent for killing your citizens without any of the usual legalities being gone through means that next time it's easier and the time after that no one is thinking it's wrong. Then you get someone in charge who doesn't like certain groups or minorites so putting them out of the way has become so much easier and may be, not this time or the next or even the ten times after that, it could be you they've decided are a danger to the state.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> You're right, it could be the thin end of the wedge, history has taught us that. Setting a precedent for killing your citizens without any of the usual legalities being gone through means that next time it's easier and the time after that no one is thinking it's wrong. Then you get someone in charge who doesn't like certain groups or minorites so putting them out of the way has become so much easier and may be, not this time or the next or even the ten times after that, it could be you they've decided are a danger to the state.



Right.  This time it was a terriorist so its ok.  Next time its a serial killer so its ok next time its only a child molester so its ok.  Until it becomes they voted against me they are an enemy of the state take them out.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 10, 2013)

I still canot come to a conclusion for myself on this.  I am extremely uncomfortable with killing American citizens without due process.  I'm also a bit uncomfortable with even assasinating foriegn nationals.  Both set precedence that would very easily be abused.  I'm also very uncomfortable with the minimal oversight of the drone program and what qualifies a person to be on that list of soon to be dead men.  On the other hand, Al Quida and the US are at war.  True it isn't a conventional war, but it is war just the same.  If a US citizens had fought for the Nazi's in WWII (and there were some that did) would you expect them to not be shot at by the US military?  

I have to wonder, are lives truly being saved by these drone strikes or are we oursleves now waging a type of war of terror on the terrorist?  Ironic f true, but disturbing as well.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2013)

We have not even touched on the question of :
are even allowd use the military against US Citizens?
 They can't within our border but does that protection go beyond the US borders? Apparently not according to the current administration.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 10, 2013)

This Admisistration is following the same exectutive order priviledges of the previous administration. The 2 differances, an "American" terrorist has been killed and the use of drones has been stepped up withe the current admisitration. But in the end the same executive priviledges. It is actually a compliment to the previous administration to follow it's lead and expand on it. Like it or not, bad guys need to be stopped and sometimes it means death.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> This Admisistration is following the same exectutive order priviledges of the previous administration. The 2 differances, an "American" terrorist has been killed and the use of drones has been stepped up withe the current admisitration. But in the end the same executive priviledges. It is actually a compliment to the previous administration to follow it's lead and expand on it. Like it or not, bad guys need to be stopped and sometimes it means death.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Yep and when this president expands the power and then the next president expands it a little farther and then the next and the next.  Its OK as long as its your side doing the expanding.  Would you feel OK giving Chaney the power to kill Americans without due process?  Hell he was destroyed for dumping a little water on peoples faces.


----------



## geezer (Feb 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You can used deadly force against a fleeing felon if you believe his escape will create immediate danger to others.



Perhaps this should be the standard we apply in the case of these drone strikes as well. The sticky question would then become what is "imminent danger". If we entrust our President with ultimate authority on such matters, and anybody, citizens included, can be assassinated on the premise that they are deemed (by the administration) to be a threat, we establish a dangerous precedent. While I actually tend to believe that historically, most Presidents (from all parties) have acted in good (if sometimes misguided) faith, I am also certain that we need checks and balances, and strict limits on executive power to insure that we don't end up on the road to becoming an authoritarian state. 

...sometimes we have to risk letting the bad guy get away, and even risk losing more innocent lives to protect ourselves from an even greater threat to our freedom, namely the threat of living under dictatorship. If you think this is far fetched, I'd say just glance at a history book or look around the world today. The first steps towards authoritarianism won't be confiscating your guns, but using fear of some domestic or external threat to confiscate your common sense and along with it your civil rights!


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2013)

geezer said:


> Perhaps this should be the standard we apply in the case of these drone strikes as well. The sticky question would then become what is "imminent danger". If we entrust our President with ultimate authority on such matters, and anybody, citizens included, can be assassinated on the premise that they are deemed (by the administration) to be a threat, we establish a dangerous precedent. While I actually tend to believe that historically, most Presidents (from all parties) have acted in good (if sometimes misguided) faith, I am also certain that we need checks and balances, and strict limits on executive power to insure that we don't end up on the road to becoming an authoritarian state.
> 
> ...sometimes we have to risk letting the bad guy get away, and even risk losing more innocent lives to protect ourselves from an even greater threat to our freedom, namely the threat of living under dictatorship. If you think this is far fetched, I'd say just glance at a history book or look around the world today. The first steps towards authoritarianism won't be confiscating your guns, but using fear of some domestic or external threat to confiscate your common sense and along with it your civil rights!



For the fleeing felon rule to be applied you need to be actually trying to catch him.  I can't just sit outside a bad guys house with a sniper rifle and as soon as I see him blow his head off.


----------



## K-man (Feb 10, 2013)

WC_lun said:


> On the other hand, Al Quida and the US are at war.  True it isn't a conventional war, but it is war just the same.  If a US citizens had fought for the Nazi's in WWII (and there were some that did) would you expect them to not be shot at by the US military?
> 
> I have to wonder, are lives truly being saved by these drone strikes or are we oursleves now waging a type of war of terror on the terrorist?  Ironic f true, but disturbing as well.


Before I start on al-Qaeda lets look at 'Nazis'. The war wasn't fought against 'Nazis' per se. It was fought against Germany. Most Germans were not Nazi, although the country was ruled by the Nazi party backed by the Waffen SS.

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation.  To define the attempt to eradicate such a group as 'War', to me, defies logic. You can have a war between countries or a civil war between opposing parties within a country. 'War on Terror' is an excuse to do what in other times you would not do but you can get away with because the country in which you are waging your 'war' is powerless to stop you.  

Let's have an 'hypothetical'.  A 'radical' freedom group springs up in China. They create a bit of mayhem, destroy some infrastructure and kill a few Chinese officials.  They seek support world wide and find support in the US.  They are under intense heat in China so the leaders escape to the US and set up their headquarters in Manhatten. The Chinese Government does what it can to get the US Government to turn over these radicals, to cut off funds, impose sanctions, etc.  Nothing is working. So the Chinese declare a 'War on Terror' and put a rocket into the building in Manhatten that houses the 'terrorists'. A number of US citizens are also killed but, in the scheme of things, that is 'collateral damage' and some loss of innocent life must be expected. 

Now I leave the rest of the story up to you but the thread could be ..

i)  The Americans shrug their shoulders and say too bad. That's the way things are in the world.
ii)  The Americans respond by declaring war on China for violating their sovereignty.
iii) Something in between.

:asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2013)

K-man said:


> Before I start on al-Qaeda lets look at 'Nazis'. The war wasn't fought against 'Nazis' per se. It was fought against Germany. Most Germans were not Nazi, although the country was ruled by the Nazi party backed by the Waffen SS.
> 
> Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation.  To define the attempt to eradicate such a group as 'War', to me, defies logic. You can have a war between countries or a civil war between opposing parties within a country. 'War on Terror' is an excuse to do what in other times you would not do but you can get away with because the country in which you are waging your 'war' is powerless to stop you.
> 
> ...



The only thing i think is the US has approval to use drones in Yemen and Pakistan  May not have public approval but I'd bet there is a " hey were going to blow this up and later we will give you this that and this. "  Wink wink nod nod.  We will let you condemned the attacks publicly


----------



## K-man (Feb 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The only thing i think is the US has approval to use drones in Yemen and Pakistan  May not have public approval but I'd bet there is a " hey were going to blow this up and later we will give you this that and this. "  Wink wink nod nod.  We will let you condemned the attacks publicly


I'm sure you're right. And the 'give you later' is all part of *Bill'*s 'charitable' foreign aid.


----------

