Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Leaked Obama administration memo sets out case for killing US citizens


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#1 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:37 PM

Leaked Obama administration memo sets out case for killing US citizens

Lawyers give 'rules' on killing senior al-Qaida members, and seek to justify drone attacks abroad

 

http://www.guardian....ion-us-al-qaida

 

 

The detailed circumstances in which a US government may order the killing of an American citizen who is a high-ranking member of al-Qaidahave been revealed in a leaked memo prepared by Obama administration lawyers.

 

The document, acquired by NBC and dating from 2011, lays out for the first time the precise rationale for carrying out targeted killings of senior al-Qaida members who are US citizens, and who are believed to pose an "imminent threat of violent attack" against the United States.

 

Although the white paper deals specifically with the issue of when and how the president can order the killing of a US citizen who is a member of al-Qaida, it also provides one of the most comprehensive accounts of the wider international legal framework the US believes supports its controversial drones policy.

 

Although the paper does not specify the "minimum legal requirements" for launching such an operation, it insists that the killing would be constitutionally justified as the United States is engaged in an "armed conflict", as defined by international law and authorised by Congress, with al-Qaida and its affiliates.

 

In a key passage in the document – which is unsigned – it argues that for a US citizen who has rights under the due process clause and the fourth amendment, "that individual's citizenship would not immunize from a lethal operation".

 

The paper concludes: "Where certain circumstances are met, a lethal operation against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida … and who himself poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, would not violate the constitution."

 

Those include defining the imminence of the specific threat and the operational seniority of the target, considerations outside of the overview of the US courts. The paper insists the decision to authorise a lethal operation may be made by an "informed, high-level official of the US government", rather than by the courts.

 

On the issue of imminence, the justification is particularly wide-reaching: as attacks are "continually" being planned by al-Qaida, it is argued, "imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity".

 

The paper justifies the exclusion of the courts by arguing that "judicial enforcement of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force".

 

The leaking of the document, with its dense legal argument justifying the targeted killings of US citizens, is certain to escalate the arguments that have been swirling around the issue.

 

Speaking to the New York Times, Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, denounced the memorandum as "a profoundly disturbing document", adding: "It's hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. It summarises in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority: the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them, far from a recognised battlefield and without any judicial involvement."



#2 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:46 PM

The paper concludes: "Where certain circumstances are met, a lethal operation against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida … and who himself poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, would not violate the constitution."

 

 

I am ok with this, and was the basis of our discussion about the drone attack on the 16 year old.  And why I will with hold judgement until we know all the facts, until then I expect he was a imminent threat.

 

 

What is the problem with including a US citizen who identifies themslef as part of whatever terrorist organization AND is a imminent threat?



#3 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,198 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:57 PM

What is the problem with including a US citizen who identifies themslef as part of whatever terrorist organization AND is a imminent threat?

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



#4 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,984 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:58 PM

http://msnbcmedia.ms...White_Paper.pdf



#5 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:59 PM

Off the top of my head I'd want to know what constitutes a "senior operational leader?" What constitutes an "imminent threat?" What type of threat would be needed to target someone? Could it be something as simple as someone shouting "death to America" that gets them labeled and executed? 



#6 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:11 PM

Off the top of my head I'd want to know what constitutes a "senior operational leader?" What constitutes an "imminent threat?" What type of threat would be needed to target someone? Could it be something as simple as someone shouting "death to America" that gets them labeled and executed? 

 

 

Come on, seriously?  Is that bolded section an actual argument?  



#7 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:31 PM

It's a question. You can tell by the little curly thing (?) at the end of it.   ;)

 

Without something in writing what's to stop them from deciding that all it takes is something as simple as that to label it an imminent threat?

 

Apparently "the document also says the government is not required "to have clear evidence" that an attack against the United States will occur in the immediate future to determine that an imminent threat is posed by a U.S. citizen."

 

http://security.blog...icans-overseas/



#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:42 PM

Ron Paul supporters were labeled terrorists and added to fusion center watch lists.



#9 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,534 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:48 PM

* How do these "memo's" function?

The article above says it's unsigned. It's obviously not law. Since it's unsigned it does't seem like it's really an official policy or procedure. Am I right in thinking that it works/functions something like this: President gets information presented to him about an american citizen (or whatever other situation) and the option is presented to kill them. Someone asks, "Is that legal?". It's a murky area so they send the question off to the legal team. Them come back with a memo like this saying, "Yep. If we look at it this way, we think it's legal." 

So the memo doesn't set down official policy. It isn't the definitive proof that it's legal (that would have to be decided by a case brought before the the justice department) but it allows them to say to themselves (either honestly or as a wink-and-nod rationalization) that "Yes. We think what we are doing is legal / right"?

 

 


* What bothers me just as much (I think) is that these memo's aren't transparent, that they have to be leaked.

 

I get that actual operations have to be kept secret before the fact. I also get that even after the fact details may have to be kept secret to not divulge capabilities and specific methods. But policy or finding of legal stances...what necessity is there for keeping that secret? It's a democracy. We should know as much as is practical about how it's administered.

 

 

* Lets say you could be assured to "YOUR" standards that anyone being targeted was truly an Imminent Threat...

It's impossible, but lets say for a moment that you could be sure any person targeted was truly someone that wanted to harm American or Americans, that there were operational leaders, imminent threats, or whatever standard YOU would need to know they are a Really Bad Person (RBP), would you be against allowing this type of no-trial killing of Americans?
 



#10 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:54 PM

It's impossible, but lets say for a moment that you could be sure any person targeted was truly someone that wanted to harm American or Americans, that there were operational leaders, imminent threats, or whatever standard YOU would need to know they are a Really Bad Person (RBP), would you be against allowing this type of no-trial killing of Americans?

 

Yes, i would be against it. it's unconstitutional. Regardless of a plethora of legal tricks adn case law that could be interpreted otherwise. If you know they are a really bad person, then you present the case in court. If you're so sure of their guilt, it shouild be easy to hamper their plans and bring them to justice. Even in Absentia.



#11 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:23 PM

And that's just it, it seems like they want a policy that allows them flexibility to violate the constitution when they see fit to do so.

 

They've already shown that it's feasible to go in and get their target (Osama) when they want to do so (scoring big political points) but then they feel it's acceptable to just bomb other less significant targets, as well as innocent people nearby, rather than going in after them.

 

You're right G, this memo is from 2011. They were supposed to have been working on a policy to have in place in case Romney won and it wouldn't be the Dems having free rein to do as they please. Apparently when they won re-election they decided there was no real rush to put those same constraints on themselves.



#12 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:51 PM

And that's just it, it seems like they want a policy that allows them flexibility to violate the constitution when they see fit to do so.

 

Thats been going on since it was ratified. The game is long since over with.



#13 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:25 PM

Ron Paul supporters were labeled terrorists and added to fusion center watch lists.

 

And how many were executed?



#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

You're missing the point. The point is that when you create arbitrary rules and the lines get greyed, anything can be justified. Whether or not anyone was executed, people were put on no fly lists, etc for being Paul supporters.

 

Are you OK with that? Whats the next step from there? Giving them Ice cream?



#15 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

It's a question. You can tell by the little curly thing (?) at the end of it.   ;)

 

Without something in writing what's to stop them from deciding that all it takes is something as simple as that to label it an imminent threat?

 

Apparently "the document also says the government is not required "to have clear evidence" that an attack against the United States will occur in the immediate future to determine that an imminent threat is posed by a U.S. citizen."

 

http://security.blog...icans-overseas/

 

And I answered it with a question, because to me that is absurd.

 

When did speaking your mind about the government constitute a death sentance?  We live in America right?  Just making sure.



#16 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:31 PM

You're missing the point. The point is that when you create arbitrary rules and the lines get greyed, anything can be justified. Whether or not anyone was executed, people were put on no fly lists, etc for being Paul supporters.

 

Are you OK with that? Whats the next step from there? Giving them Ice cream?

 

So rules are bad?

 

I have not heard anything about Rob Paul Supprters.

 

 

How can you have a legit discussion when everything is F'd, and the counter is absurd?  (Give them Ice Cream?)



#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:33 PM

:facepalm:

 

 

Nevermind. Just go back to doing....whatever you were doing there.



#18 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:40 PM

:picardfp:

 

 

Nevermind. Just go back to doing....whatever you were doing there.

 

 

Why?

 

 

I do not understand your sarcasm.  I ask for clarification, and I get dismissed.  I see how it works.

 

:picardfp:



#19 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:42 PM

Thats been going on since it was ratified. The game is long since over with.

 

My cup is over flowing, and your cup is almost empty.

 

I am optomistic, you are not.

 

 

I do not think the game is over.  So because I disagree, again, I get dismissed? 



#20 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:44 PM

And I answered it with a question, because to me that is absurd.

 

When did speaking your mind about the government constitute a death sentance?  We live in America right?  Just making sure.

Maybe we should ask the 16 year old American kid that was sentenced without a trial, targeted and then bombed to death.

 

Oh right, we can't do that because he was never given the chance to answer to the charges or to defend himself against them. Nor has the government seen fit to share their reason for killing him with those seeking answers.



#21 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:46 PM

Maybe we should ask the 16 year old American kid that was sentenced without a trial, targeted and then bombed to death.

 

Oh right, we can't do that because he was never given the chance to answer to the charges or to defend himself against them. Nor has the government seen fit to share their reason for killing him with those seeking answers.

 

 

How come when we had this discussion a few days ago, you did not question me for waiting for all the evidence.  You actually stated you could not argue that point.  That I was in my right to do so?

 

But now it is different?  Why?

 

 

Please note this is the 6th thread in 6 weeks.  In case you forgot.



#22 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:17 PM

Nothing is different nor am I questioning you for waiting. You're free to wait as long as you want.

 

Who said anything is different?

 

As far as we know right now that kid didn't do a damn thing wrong and yet he was targeted and executed. The government is doing all it can to keep the reason for that execution private while also suggesting they have the right to do it again.

 

You seem to feel that that is acceptable behavior, that's your choice. Many of us believe they've overstepped their authority and that they should answer for their actions.

 

What difference does it make how many threads it is?



#23 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:33 PM

My cup is over flowing, and your cup is almost empty.

 

I am optomistic, you are not.

 

 

I do not think the game is over.  So because I disagree, again, I get dismissed? 

 

My cup is just fine, thanks. I happen to see situations from a realistic perspective. You seem to want to believe in all you heart that things are going to get better. As they continue to get worse. It's realism , dude. It has nothing to do with how I feel about my cup. It has everything to do with the reality of said cup.

 

I dismissed you because Im not going to go in that circle. I explained the slippery slope of creating arbitrary rules, or no rules in this instance, and how that can lead to further greying of rules. I said nothing about "rules being bad". 



#24 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:02 PM

My cup is just fine, thanks. I happen to see situations from a realistic perspective. You seem to want to believe in all you heart that things are going to get better. As they continue to get worse. It's realism , dude. It has nothing to do with how I feel about my cup. It has everything to do with the reality of said cup.

 

I dismissed you because Im not going to go in that circle. I explained the slippery slope of creating arbitrary rules, or no rules in this instance, and how that can lead to further greying of rules. I said nothing about "rules being bad". 

 

 

Wow, someone is very testy today.  I just do not get sarcasm as a legit argument, so I question it with the same sarcasm.  Sorry you could not see that. But at least when you do not, I do not dismiss you simply because you went that route.

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing is different nor am I questioning you for waiting. You're free to wait as long as you want.

 

Who said anything is different?

 

You are not questioning me for waiting?

 

Then why would I ask a dead 16 year old?  I feel that is questioning me.

 

 

 

 

As far as we know right now that kid didn't do a damn thing wrong and yet he was targeted and executed. The government is doing all it can to keep the reason for that execution private while also suggesting they have the right to do it again.

 

You seem to feel that that is acceptable behavior, that's your choice. Many of us believe they've overstepped their authority and that they should answer for their actions.

 

What difference does it make how many threads it is?

 

Do you not remember this part of the last conversation:

 

I said for all we know, he could have thought the sun shined out of his fathers arse, who was a terrorist.  Who knows he was not strapped to suicide bomb everyone in that cafe.  How do we know?  You seem to know, which is where we differ.  I will wait for the facts.  You will worry that this impedes on liberty.  I feel both are fine, but please do not imply that I am an insensitive prick who just thinks killing is acceptable.

 

I have stated that if he was inoccent then there should be consequences for the administration.  There should be reprecussions.  

 

 

I know you do not think this is acceptable, and we have had this discussion often.  Hence me saying 1 a week, or 6 in 6 weeks (or the many threads hi jacked by your dead 16 year old reference).  We have had this round about discussion everytime you post about this, but somehow you do not see or accept my point of view.
 
I understand yours.  A slippery slope, no due processs, human rights issues, creating terrorists, etc.  I see where this goes.  But because I wait to pass judgement, I am not right.


#25 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,198 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:22 PM

Wow, someone is very testy today.  I just do not get sarcasm as a legit argument, so I question it with the same sarcasm.  Sorry you could not see that. But at least when you do not, I do not dismiss you simply because you went that route.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are not questioning me for waiting?

 

Then why would I ask a dead 16 year old?  I feel that is questioning me.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you not remember this part of the last conversation:

 

I said for all we know, he could have thought the sun shined out of his fathers arse, who was a terrorist.  Who knows he was not strapped to suicide bomb everyone in that cafe.  How do we know?  You seem to know, which is where we differ.  I will wait for the facts.  You will worry that this impedes on liberty.  I feel both are fine, but please do not imply that I am an insensitive prick who just thinks killing is acceptable.

 

I have stated that if he was inoccent then there should be consequences for the administration.  There should be reprecussions.  

 

 

I know you do not think this is acceptable, and we have had this discussion often.  Hence me saying 1 a week, or 6 in 6 weeks (or the many threads hi jacked by your dead 16 year old reference).  We have had this round about discussion everytime you post about this, but somehow you do not see or accept my point of view.
 
I understand yours.  A slippery slope, no due processs, human rights issues, creating terrorists, etc.  I see where this goes.  But because I wait to pass judgement, I am not right.

 

 

I haven't been a big part of this discussion, but would like to ask...how long are you willing to wait? Do you think that a government who hasn't officially admitted that this program is going on after several years is suddenly going to decide to be more transparent and give us its rationale for extrajudicially executing American citizens?

I believe that such actions are Unconstitutional on their faces, so I'm not so concerned about the reasons for them, but I'm curious how long you think is "too long."



#26 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:27 PM

Wow, someone is very testy today.  I just do not get sarcasm as a legit argument, so I question it with the same sarcasm.  Sorry you could not see that. But at least when you do not, I do not dismiss you simply because you went that route.

 

Im not testy at all. I explained the slippery sloope of arbitrary rules like these adn asked a quesiton. To which, you replied with....wait for it..... WAIT FOR IT..... a question. Then got stuck on a snarky remark regarding ice cream.

 

 

WEEEEEEEEEE!!!

 

100903HappyDays1.jpg

 

 

Have at it, bro. I just dont want to run in your circle is all.



#27 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:28 PM

I haven't been a big part of this discussion, but would like to ask...how long are you willing to wait? 

 

Fair question:  Not entirely sure, but Obama is in office for four more years.  I say before the half way point is too long.  So with in the next year would be acceptable.

 

 

 

Do you think that a government who hasn't officially admitted that this program is going on after several years is suddenly going to decide to be more transparent and give us its rationale for extrajudicially executing American citizens?

 

Yes, because the president talks transparency, and that argument will eventually catch up with him.  I said we should keep pressuring the administration until we get answers.

 

We only know of 1 US citizen being killed, whose father was a terrorist.

 

 

I believe that such actions are Unconstitutional on their faces, so I'm not so concerned about the reasons for them, but I'm curious how long you think is "too long."

 

I do too, to an extent.  If he was an imminent teror threat, than I am 100% fine with him being killed.  Otherwise, there should be reprecussions.

 

TtB, always good insight and adding levity to a discussion.



#28 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:34 PM

Im not testy at all. I explained the slippery sloope of arbitrary rules like these adn asked a quesiton. To which, you replied with....wait for it..... WAIT FOR IT..... a question. Then got stuck on a snarky remark regarding ice cream.

 

 

WEEEEEEEEEE!!!

 

100903HappyDays1.jpg

 

 

Have at it, bro. I just dont want to run in your circle is all.

 

 

The slippery slope is fine, and I agreed with, but that does not seem to matter.

 

You started with Ron Paul Suppoerters were put on terror list and no fly.  How is this different then being labeled a commie in the 50's and 60's?    Historically our government has been doing this since day 1.  That is my point.  To complain now is not understanding the rules.  Which I know you do, which makes it even more fustrating.

 

 

My point about the cups were, besides the state of our cups, we both agree in general on most things.  I just have more faith in people, and you think it is to far gone for people to fix.  Beyond that, where do we differ in general?



#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:42 PM

We only know of 1 US citizen being killed, whose father was a terrorist.

 

3

 

The father was an american citizen and an alleged "terrorist".



#30 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:57 PM

You are not questioning me for waiting?

 

Then why would I ask a dead 16 year old?  I feel that is questioning me.

 

 

No, I'm not questioning you waiting, I haven't done that at all, despite your continued insistence that I have. You can "feel" it all you want but it's just not true.

 

 

Do you not remember this part of the last conversation:

 

I said for all we know, he could have thought the sun shined out of his fathers arse, who was a terrorist.  Who knows he was not strapped to suicide bomb everyone in that cafe.  How do we know?  You seem to know, which is where we differ.  I will wait for the facts.  You will worry that this impedes on liberty.  I feel both are fine, but please do not imply that I am an insensitive prick who just thinks killing is acceptable.

 

I have stated that if he was inoccent then there should be consequences for the administration.  There should be reprecussions.  

 

 

I know you do not think this is acceptable, and we have had this discussion often.  Hence me saying 1 a week, or 6 in 6 weeks (or the many threads hi jacked by your dead 16 year old reference).  We have had this round about discussion everytime you post about this, but somehow you do not see or accept my point of view.
Where have I said anything close it not being acceptable? What point of view of yours don't I accept? You're either making shit up or seeing things that aren't there because I've repeatedly stated there's nothing wrong with waiting for more info and you continue to ignore it and state otherwise.
 
 
 
 
I understand yours.  A slippery slope, no due processs, human rights issues, creating terrorists, etc.  I see where this goes.  But because I wait to pass judgement, I am not right.

Who said you weren't right? Or is this just something else that you "feel" I said despite me never having said it?



#31 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:57 PM

The slippery slope is fine, and I agreed with, but that does not seem to matter.

 

You started with Ron Paul Suppoerters were put on terror list and no fly.  How is this different then being labeled a commie in the 50's and 60's?    Historically our government has been doing this since day 1.  That is my point.  To complain now is not understanding the rules.  Which I know you do, which makes it even more fustrating.

 

 

My point about the cups were, besides the state of our cups, we both agree in general on most things.  I just have more faith in people, and you think it is to far gone for people to fix.  Beyond that, where do we differ in general?

 

I was showing by example how these types of things end up. It's start out one way and ends very differently. From 2001 terrorists, to 2o10 American "terroist" assassinations. That was the point of the analogy.

 

I wasn't alive in the 50s and 60s to "bitch" about it. I was "bitching" about being on said lists in 2007 as a Paul supporter. Along with every other case of it that I knew of, including old news activities of this nature. I'm nothing at all if not consistent. Which makes that whole "it's the way it's always been!" argument a wet noodle. I guess since it's been the deal all along we should just shut up and go along with it...or wait until the govt. tells us why they are donig it. :lmao:



#32 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

I was showing by example how these types of things end up. It's start out one way and ends very differently. From 2001 terrorists, to 2o10 American "terroist" assassinations. That was the point of the analogy.

 

I wasn't alive in the 50s and 60s to "bitch" about it. I was "bitching" about being on said lists in 2007 as a Paul supporter. Along with every other case of it that I knew of, including old news activities of this nature. I'm nothing at all if not consistent. Which makes that whole "it's the way it's always been!" argument a wet noodle. I guess since it's been the deal all along we should just shut up and go along with it...or wait until the govt. tells us why they are donig it. :lmao:

 

Of course we shouldn't just shut up, but there has to be some acceptance that this is the system we have had since the country was founded.  

 

So you were not around then, but you are a bit of a history buff and use history frequently in your statements to support your view.  Why does history not apply here for accepting democracy is not easy and we are not past the point of no return or that things cant get better?



#33 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

This is why I feel you are insinuating that I am not right.

 

I stated this (with the poor spelling):

And I answered it with a question, because to me that is absurd.

 

When did speaking your mind about the government constitute a death sentance?  We live in America right?  Just making sure.

 

 

Then you responded with the below.

 

 

Maybe we should ask the 16 year old American kid that was sentenced without a trial, targeted and then bombed to death.

 

Oh right, we can't do that because he was never given the chance to answer to the charges or to defend himself against them. Nor has the government seen fit to share their reason for killing him with those seeking answers.

 

While you wont go as far as directly saying I am wrong or not right.

 

Please tell me how asking the 16 year old this question is not implying this?  Taking into account the numerous conversations we have had about this.   

 

 

You went as far as stating that you may end up on some list or be executed for saying "death to america".  I just want to wait for all the facts.



#34 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:31 PM

Of course we shouldn't just shut up, but there has to be some acceptance that this is the system we have had since the country was founded.  

 

So you were not around then, but you are a bit of a history buff and use history frequently in your statements to support your view.  Why does history not apply here for accepting democracy is not easy and we are not past the point of no return or that things cant get better?

 

Show me a historical instance where a nation has gone so far past it's rule of law that returned from a point of no return into prosperity without first coming almost to a complete collapse...or did completely collapse. And thankfully, we're not a direct democracy, although it seems we're being shoved that way by popular consent the last number of years. I'm just being realistic, Andy. History does not leave a lot of room for a correction at this point in where we have come to. I was a vehement believer that we could fix it only a few years ago. I have lost hat optimism completely simply from studying history. We dont make massive changes as a species until they are forced onto us. This instance is no different.



#35 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,579 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:01 PM

This is why I feel you are insinuating that I am not right.

 

I stated this (with the poor spelling):

 

 

Then you responded with the below.

 

 

 

While you wont go as far as directly saying I am wrong or not right.

 

Please tell me how asking the 16 year old this question is not implying this?  Taking into account the numerous conversations we have had about this.   

 

 

You went as far as stating that you may end up on some list or be executed for saying "death to america".  I just want to wait for all the facts.

How about you tell us how asking the 16 year old the question has anything to do with you being wrong about waiting for more info?

 

And no, I never stated I "may end up on some list or be executed for saying "death to america". What I DID do was ask the question "Could it be something as simple as someone shouting "death to America" that gets them labeled and executed?

 

 

Sorry but if you're just going to continue misrepresenting what I say then I'm not going to bother wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.



#36 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:03 AM

Joker please name the Americans that have been killed by US drones, Tabbooma sees you like to post alot about the US policy and drones and how we are killing innocent Americans... Name some names Joker ;)



#37 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,228 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:03 AM

How about you tell us how asking the 16 year old the question has anything to do with you being wrong about waiting for more info?

 

And no, I never stated I "may end up on some list or be executed for saying "death to america". What I DID do was ask the question "Could it be something as simple as someone shouting "death to America" that gets them labeled and executed?

 

 

Sorry but if you're just going to continue misrepresenting what I say then I'm not going to bother wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.

 

 

The semantics around here.  Ugh and wow.

 

forget it.  I will just ask the dead kid.  :facepalm:



#38 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:26 AM

Joker please name the Americans that have been killed by US drones, Tabbooma sees you like to post alot about the US policy and drones and how we are killing innocent Americans... Name some names Joker ;)

 

 

Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011, by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft.

Mr. Awlaki had been perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, with his message carried extensively over the Internet. His online lectures and sermons had been linked to more than a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States, Britain and Canada.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009, had exchanged e-mails with Mr. Awlaki before the deadly rampage. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab met with him before he failed to blow up an airplane with a bomb hidden in his underwear in December 2009. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.

The drone attack also killed Samir Khan, an American citizen born in Pakistan traveling with Mr. Awlaki. Mr. Khan edited Al Qaeda’s online jihadist magazine. A month later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado, was part of a group of people killed by a drone strike in Yemen.

Mr. Awlaki, whom the United States had been hunting in Yemen for more than two years, had been identified as the target in advance and was killed with a Hellfire missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. The strike appeared to be the first time in the United States-led war on terrorism since the 9/11 attacks that an American citizen had been deliberately targeted and killed by American forces.

His influence has survived his death. A 21-year-old Bangladeshi man charged in October 2012 with trying to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in Lower Manhattan in a sting operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation told an undercover agent that he had formed his jihadist views listening to Mr. Awlaki’s sermons.

 

http://topics.nytime...laki/index.html

 

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=14765076

 

Awlaki Family Protests U.S. Killing of Anwar Awlaki's Teen Son



#39 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:29 AM

Tabbooma sheds no tear over this man

 



#40 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:33 AM

Betcha he supported the 2nd amendment



#41 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:41 AM



#42 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:41 AM

Shedding tears are a different feat than the rule of law.



#43 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:55 AM

Rule of law, really... We are at war, the man sold out his country and was targeted, what law was broken? The man is a combatant and was killed



#44 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:59 AM



#45 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 01:08 AM

Dead soldiers at Ft Hood, Times Square and Detroit Airline bombing tries all tied to this piece of shit. You want justice, yeah so does Tabbooma, the man wanted a fight and he got it...



#46 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:02 AM

Alleged.



#47 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,198 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:45 AM

...and how we are killing innocent Americans...

 

Has he said that anywhere? I don't recall seeing it.

 

Joker and others (including myself) have posted concerns about Americans being executed without due process of law.

 

I don't know if they're innocent or not. Nor does Jack. Nor do you.

 

IMO, that's the point behind having a judicial system, legal representation and other processes in place and in effect before the government can take someone's life.



#48 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,628 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:11 PM

Who cares. As I said, the game is over. They will kill whoever they want and justify it however it is necessary to get people to go along quietly. Rule of law be damned.



#49 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:37 PM

Thank you Mr Helpers for your input, by the way Tabbooma was speaking to Joker, your responses are quite typical and expected to hear, again, where are all the americans that drones are killing, I now see 2, an alleged terrorist (Yeah Okay alleged) and his 16 year old son that was either in the wrong place or an active participant with some very bad folks... Okay TASB, still have not heard what law was broken, we are at war, the man is a partiicpant and was killed,  what if he was shot on the ground, that would be okay? You all want more boots on the ground to go after these guys than Tabbooma suggests you go join the military, the good thing is if the BEEK and TASB joined you (Sorry Jack we are too old and Tabbooma did his service already) could keep an eye on the man and make sure he does not cast us under that tyranical yoke, sure would comfort the 2nd amenders ;) 



#50 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,587 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:47 PM

:bouncey:  :chickenkneu:   Tabbooma has to go to work... Will back ;)