Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
So much for due process...
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


dr_feelgood


Sep 30, 2011, 7:09 AM
Post #1 of 53 (2154 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25629

So much for due process...
Report this Post
Can't Post

http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.


scrapedape


Sep 30, 2011, 7:46 AM
Post #2 of 53 (2147 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I am willing to bet that lots (by no means all) of us would be willing to tolerate an exception to due process rights in the particular case of al-Awlaki, given the nature of his goals and the impracticability of arresting and charging him. Just as a lot of us (by no means all) would be willing to tolerate an exception to the First Amendment for the likes of Fred Phelps.

The challenge, of course, comes from the fact that in order for such rights and protections to be there for the rest of us, they have to be guaranteed for the most odious of us, too.

An interesting question this prompts, then, is whether this is any different than the OBL assassination? Does it matter that it was carried out by drones rather than a SEAL team? Does anyone think the SEALs were there to take OBL into custody and he was only killed because he resisted? Does it really matter that he was a US citizen? Is it somehow ok for our government to execute people without trial, as long as they are foreign citizens?


curt


Sep 30, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #3 of 53 (2141 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.

Good riddance.

Curt


lena_chita
Moderator

Sep 30, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #4 of 53 (2139 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5472

Re: [scrapedape] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
I am willing to bet that lots (by no means all) of us would be willing to tolerate an exception to due process rights in the particular case of al-Awlaki, given the nature of his goals and the impracticability of arresting and charging him. Just as a lot of us (by no means all) would be willing to tolerate an exception to the First Amendment for the likes of Fred Phelps.

The challenge, of course, comes from the fact that in order for such rights and protections to be there for the rest of us, they have to be guaranteed for the most odious of us, too.

An interesting question this prompts, then, is whether this is any different than the OBL assassination? Does it matter that it was carried out by drones rather than a SEAL team? Does anyone think the SEALs were there to take OBL into custody and he was only killed because he resisted? Does it really matter that he was a US citizen? Is it somehow ok for our government to execute people without trial, as long as they are foreign citizens?


I think the argument would be that this is war, and there is no "due process" for people actively involved in the war against US, regardless of their citizenship. If you pick up arms, literal or figurative, then you lose the right to object if the military forces of the country you are fighting against shoot at you.

But the slippery slope is also very apparent.

In some countries there is such thing as being tried in absentia. Not saying that this is a good thing in general, but realistically, what choices does US have, if there is a known criminal who is actively working on doing harm to US, and who cannot be brought in for trial?


skiclimb


Sep 30, 2011, 8:30 AM
Post #5 of 53 (2130 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1936

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think many of us are very suspect of the war in Iraq and the war in Afganistan. But there is a legitimate war going on. There are actually people out there who have declared themselves our enemies and made clear their intent to do us harm.

They are not nation-states. But they are at war with us.

This person is one of them. In war the enemy is a valid target regardless of nationality and certainly without trial. The bloodiest war that the USA has ever fought by far was a war against it's own citizens.

I have absolutely no problem with our military taking out any enemy of this nature anytime anywhere in the world. Infact I would suggest that any president make that a declaration of DOCTRINE.

I have always thought that these groups were valid targets... long before 911. I also thought it was foolish that we were not going after them aggresively long ago. I am glad we are doing so now.

It is however complicated by the fact that we have two illegitimate major wars going on in Iraq and Afganistan.

It is also seriously complicated by the lack of trust in the office of the presidency.

For example When shrub started beating the drums of war for IRAQ I had serious doubts. I just did not see Saddam as a serious threat. However I felt I had to give the president the benefit of the doubt and believed he and congress must have access to information I did not. Hell that's his job. That's why we have a president and congress.

I was wrong and the President was dead wrong. We should have impeached him as soon as no WMDs were discovered or at the very least voted him out.

I also have grave doubts about Obama and who he really works for. SO it is natural to have doubts about whether this guy was really the enemy. If the facts are as reported I am just fine with taking him out. But CAN WE TRUST THE FACTS AS REPORTED??


(This post was edited by skiclimb on Sep 30, 2011, 8:31 AM)


scrapedape


Sep 30, 2011, 9:19 AM
Post #6 of 53 (2113 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [skiclimb] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

skiclimb wrote:
I think many of us are very suspect of the war in Iraq and the war in Afganistan. But there is a legitimate war going on. There are actually people out there who have declared themselves our enemies and made clear their intent to do us harm.

They are not nation-states. But they are at war with us.

This person is one of them. In war the enemy is a valid target regardless of nationality and certainly without trial. The bloodiest war that the USA has ever fought by far was a war against it's own citizens.

I have absolutely no problem with our military taking out any enemy of this nature anytime anywhere in the world. Infact I would suggest that any president make that a declaration of DOCTRINE.

I have always thought that these groups were valid targets... long before 911. I also thought it was foolish that we were not going after them aggresively long ago. I am glad we are doing so now.

It is however complicated by the fact that we have two illegitimate major wars going on in Iraq and Afganistan.

It is also seriously complicated by the lack of trust in the office of the presidency.

For example When shrub started beating the drums of war for IRAQ I had serious doubts. I just did not see Saddam as a serious threat. However I felt I had to give the president the benefit of the doubt and believed he and congress must have access to information I did not. Hell that's his job. That's why we have a president and congress.

I was wrong and the President was dead wrong. We should have impeached him as soon as no WMDs were discovered or at the very least voted him out.

I also have grave doubts about Obama and who he really works for. SO it is natural to have doubts about whether this guy was really the enemy. If the facts are as reported I am just fine with taking him out. But CAN WE TRUST THE FACTS AS REPORTED??

You and lena have alluded to the problem.

In every practical sense, it does seem like OBL or al-Awlaki is a legitmate target.

What bothers me is that we have these targets, and are actively pursuing them, without a clear legal framework to say precisely what the conditions are that have made them legitimate targets. Presidential doctrine, secret decisions, and the like, seem like a bad solution, if an understandable one.

So I guess what I am saying is, it seems like it's important to have some clear and specific criteria, beyond "the President says so."


camhead


Sep 30, 2011, 10:32 AM
Post #7 of 53 (2103 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20658

Re: [scrapedape] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

As much as I try, I just can't get outraged about this. We're at war. The guy was not innocent. I understand the due process concerns, the 5th amendment concerns, the whole impersonal Orwellian drone thing, and above all, the whole slippery slope concern about this being used on other perceived enemies, but I find nothing wrong with taking out an enemy propagandist.


curt


Sep 30, 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #8 of 53 (2091 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [camhead] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
As much as I try, I just can't get outraged about this. We're at war. The guy was not innocent. I understand the due process concerns, the 5th amendment concerns, the whole impersonal Orwellian drone thing, and above all, the whole slippery slope concern about this being used on other perceived enemies, but I find nothing wrong with taking out an enemy propagandist.

Additionally, I have a hard time applying the "slippery slope" argument here at all. This guy was recruiting terrorists to kill Americans. Thus, in my mind he was absolutely a legitimate target. I think people who want to make a "slippery slope" argument should be far more worried about the Patriot Act, with its illegal wiretapping of US citizens who have done nothing whatsoever wrong.

Curt


damienclimber


Sep 30, 2011, 4:12 PM
Post #9 of 53 (2067 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.


Homegrown masquerade games !


notapplicable


Sep 30, 2011, 6:09 PM
Post #10 of 53 (2051 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [damienclimber] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.


petsfed


Sep 30, 2011, 8:26 PM
Post #11 of 53 (2040 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think the big story here is that we ran an airstrike in Yemen, not that we killed a man whose trial would've amounted to "death penalty or life in Florence, CO".

Seriously, they had more on this guy than the black dude Texas killed last week.


ClimbClimb


Oct 1, 2011, 3:26 PM
Post #12 of 53 (1996 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 387

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
Predator drones are their own judge and jury.

You may find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

For example:
In reply to:
Al-Awlaki was charged in absentia in Sana'a, Yemen, on November 2 with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. .. On November 6, Yemeni Judge Mohsen Alwan ordered that al-Awlaki be caught "dead or alive".

and

In reply to:
In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Awlaki 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


dan2see


Oct 1, 2011, 9:41 PM
Post #13 of 53 (1983 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Wikipedia isn't always correct, but it covers a lot of basics quickly.

Wikipedia: Due Process

Wikipedia wrote:
Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.


dan2see


Oct 1, 2011, 9:58 PM
Post #14 of 53 (1979 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [dan2see] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Statistics aren't always facts, but this kind of list should help people to categorize the major hazards in life.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Leading Causes of Death in US in 2007

CDC wrote:
Heart disease: 616,067
Cancer: 562,875
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
Diabetes: 71,382
Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
Septicemia: 34,828

All of the terrorist attacks in the USA for the last 50 years combined, don't even make the bottom of the list.

So who kills more Americans? Terrorists, or Camel?

I don't know about crimes statistics, but I did find this:
Altlantic Review: Murder Rate in the United States and Germany
Atlantic Review wrote:
...
In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. ...

So who kills more Americans? El Quaeda, or Americans?

Huh?


sungam


Oct 2, 2011, 3:06 AM
Post #15 of 53 (1968 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [notapplicable] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.


ClimbClimb


Oct 2, 2011, 5:33 AM
Post #16 of 53 (1961 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 387

Re: [dan2see] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.

Don't think it's actually necessary, but see above - there was an order from a Yemeni judge demanding that he be brought back "dead or alive". Some undisclosed combination of Yemeni and US forces implemented that court order on Yemeni soil. Sounds like due process even by the narrowest of definitions.


damienclimber


Oct 2, 2011, 4:35 PM
Post #17 of 53 (1926 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [ClimbClimb] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ClimbClimb wrote:
dan2see wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.

Don't think it's actually necessary, but see above - there was an order from a Yemeni judge demanding that he be brought back "dead or alive". Some undisclosed combination of Yemeni and US forces implemented that court order on Yemeni soil. Sounds like due process even by the narrowest of definitions.


that according to the U.S government
high alert for revenge attack is in the news.


spikeddem


Oct 2, 2011, 5:44 PM
Post #18 of 53 (1913 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????


notapplicable


Oct 2, 2011, 5:57 PM
Post #19 of 53 (1907 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [spikeddem] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????

What part of STFU nOOb do you not understand?


sungam


Oct 3, 2011, 4:17 AM
Post #20 of 53 (1883 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [spikeddem] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????
Holy shit! Do you see what happens when I don't proof read?

Uh, if Jaques or Joe could come in here and translate this shit for me, that would be great. It's kinda like when your hand writing is so bad you can't read it 5 minutes later. I don't know what it says.

I thinks I was saying selling cigis is not the same as murder.


dan2see


Oct 3, 2011, 5:37 AM
Post #21 of 53 (1874 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????
Holy shit! Do you see what happens when I don't proof read?

Uh, if Jaques or Joe could come in here and translate this shit for me, that would be great. It's kinda like when your hand writing is so bad you can't read it 5 minutes later. I don't know what it says.

I thinks I was saying selling cigis is not the same as murder.

That's how I understands your paragraph.

I posted the death statistics to show my own take on political and social policies of government and people.

It's easy to say that this Al-Awlaki guy was dangerous, and that due process can be short-circuited, for the good of the American citizen.

My own opinion of that raid, is that certain branches of the US government are willing to act as immoral outlaws, they have the power to do so, and the citizens approve because the logic is expedient.

On the other hand, your government and society demonstrate how they set priorities by spending money and man-hours.

It's easy to use statistics to show how this works.

For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking. But instead of addressing the addiction head-on, you allow the tobacco companies to make a profit on the sales of an agricultural product.

On the other hand, 4000 people were killed, 10 years ago, by terrorists. But instead of trying to understand why those terrorists have so much popular support, the US has built this multi-billion dollar Homeland Security that might work. Unfortunately its performance is secret, so it's not accountable, and not responsible for succeeding. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Homeland Security is wrong: I'm saying the priority that created it is missing.

Priority.

Priority and sanity.

Sanity means: priority action on priority needs.
This builds national strength.

Or you can howl at the wind, and say to hell with your people's real problems.


sungam


Oct 3, 2011, 6:00 AM
Post #22 of 53 (1867 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [dan2see] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.


chadnsc


Oct 3, 2011, 9:43 AM
Post #23 of 53 (1839 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [curt] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

curt wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.

Good riddance.

Curt

+1


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 3, 2011, 12:23 PM
Post #24 of 53 (1823 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.

Ok, so our justification for executing a citizen is a dead our alive arrest order from a questionable g'ment under the assumption that arrest was impractical and death was immanent.

So (enter the slope) predator drones for drunk drivers who are driving on a suspended license?


Partner cracklover


Oct 3, 2011, 2:11 PM
Post #25 of 53 (1816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Ok, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was the dude who preached hate and said that all Muslims should rise up to attack America.

Unless he provided material support, I see the criminality of that as something that really needs to be proven in a court of law, since the guy was an American citizen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not shedding any tears for his death. But how is this guy any different from the wackos who preach that "baby killers" (aka abortion-providing doctors) should be killed, or KKK members who say that blacks should be killed?

Perhaps I'm just ignorant about the facts. If so, could someone please explain the difference? Otherwise, no way should this guy have been taken out without due process being served.

GO


hugepedro


Oct 3, 2011, 3:30 PM
Post #26 of 53 (1861 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [cracklover] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think the difference is he is a leader in an organization that has declared war on the U.S., has attacked the U.S., and continues to try to attack the U.S., including attempts apparently led/organized/encouraged in some way by him.

The other example groups you gave are not at war with the U.S.

I think if one is going to fight or lead on the other side in a war then one can expect to get aquainted with the business end of a Hellfire missile


sungam


Oct 4, 2011, 12:42 AM
Post #27 of 53 (1835 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
sungam wrote:
dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.

Ok, so our justification for executing a citizen is a dead our alive arrest order from a questionable g'ment under the assumption that arrest was impractical and death was immanent.

So (enter the slope) predator drones for drunk drivers who are driving on a suspended license?
Uh, no. I was saying there was a huge difference between murder and selling ciggis, which Dan seemed to be claiming where the same.

Notice I never said "This guy is a criminal! He should be executed!". This is mostly because I think the death penalty is fucking disgusting. Wheat NA said and I quoted was that he was part of a group that declared war on the US, so if the US military kills him in the combat zone, well, that's how war goes. When you declare war, you kinda gotta expect that kind of thing.

It's not a war between countries, it's not against people of a certain religion, citezenship, or tribe. It's a country vs a group of people that came together of their own free will to form a team to attack the country they hate. Their citezinship etc. does not dictate wether or not they are an enemy, only their membership of the group does.


^More incoherant shitty writing, I'd fix it but I gotta get to class.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 4:48 AM
Post #28 of 53 (1827 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
sungam wrote:
dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.

Ok, so our justification for executing a citizen is a dead our alive arrest order from a questionable g'ment under the assumption that arrest was impractical and death was immanent.

So (enter the slope) predator drones for drunk drivers who are driving on a suspended license?
Uh, no. I was saying there was a huge difference between murder and selling ciggis, which Dan seemed to be claiming where the same.

Notice I never said "This guy is a criminal! He should be executed!". This is mostly because I think the death penalty is fucking disgusting. Wheat NA said and I quoted was that he was part of a group that declared war on the US, so if the US military kills him in the combat zone, well, that's how war goes. When you declare war, you kinda gotta expect that kind of thing.

It's not a war between countries, it's not against people of a certain religion, citezenship, or tribe. It's a country vs a group of people that came together of their own free will to form a team to attack the country they hate. Their citezinship etc. does not dictate wether or not they are an enemy, only their membership of the group does.


^More incoherant shitty writing, I'd fix it but I gotta get to class.

War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action"). Wars on drugs, poverty, and, yes, drunk driving are declared so that rights of the people may be revoked in the name of war / emergency.


csproul


Oct 4, 2011, 7:05 AM
Post #29 of 53 (1818 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1765

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 7:29 AM
Post #30 of 53 (1814 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [csproul] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 8:11 AM
Post #31 of 53 (1804 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?


sungam


Oct 4, 2011, 8:20 AM
Post #32 of 53 (1800 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Wars on drugs, poverty, and, yes, drunk driving are declared so that rights of the people may be revoked in the name of war / emergency.
Yesh, the government using the term to "allow" revoking rights is whack.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 8:23 AM
Post #33 of 53 (1798 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?


camhead


Oct 4, 2011, 9:28 AM
Post #34 of 53 (1788 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20658

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Uhhh... fuck yes?

this debate has gotten really stupid.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 9:52 AM
Post #35 of 53 (1782 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 10:03 AM
Post #36 of 53 (1776 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [camhead] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Uhhh... fuck yes?

this debate has gotten really stupid.

Of course it has, you-know-who is involved.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 10:28 AM
Post #37 of 53 (1769 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.

You are always justified in taking out soldiers and their leaders (but historically we have not gone in for out and out assassination). But terrorists, for the most part, are not soldiers. Without the backing of a state, they are criminals. Pure and simple criminals. In general, using military for police activities is a bad idea, both constitutionally and in terms of effectiveness of the military.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 10:36 AM
Post #38 of 53 (1768 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.

You are always justified in taking out soldiers and their leaders (but historically we have not gone in for out and out assassination). But terrorists, for the most part, are not soldiers. Without the backing of a state, they are criminals. Pure and simple criminals. In general, using military for police activities is a bad idea, both constitutionally and in terms of effectiveness of the military.

According to you they are not soldiers. I don't know where you've been the past 10 years, but your definition doesn't really fit the real world these days.

Using police/prosecutorial methods should be the first choice, of course. But when that is not possible or pragmatic, then what do you propose we should do? Let him keep organizing attacks against us? That's irresponsible.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 11:59 AM
Post #39 of 53 (1748 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.

You are always justified in taking out soldiers and their leaders (but historically we have not gone in for out and out assassination). But terrorists, for the most part, are not soldiers. Without the backing of a state, they are criminals. Pure and simple criminals. In general, using military for police activities is a bad idea, both constitutionally and in terms of effectiveness of the military.

According to you they are not soldiers. I don't know where you've been the past 10 years, but your definition doesn't really fit the real world these days.

Using police/prosecutorial methods should be the first choice, of course. But when that is not possible or pragmatic, then what do you propose we should do? Let him keep organizing attacks against us? That's irresponsible.

It doesn't matter if I self label myself as a soldier for christ, a soldier for allah, or simply a soljah, without the backing of a state I'm nothing but a thug. Sometimes states back thugs, but that is different.

I never suggested that we simply turn a blind eye, I'm only pointing out that the niceties of law are always worth respecting. In this case because our drones are operating extra legally in a mostly lawless area, we end up tripping on our constitution.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 12:25 PM
Post #40 of 53 (1745 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

No we are not tripping on our Constitution, unless you think it is unconstitutional to kill someone that is killing us, which it clearly is not (as the tower shooter example illustrates). We kill American citizens that are killing us all the time, and there is no Constitutional issue in doing so.


pinktricam


Oct 4, 2011, 12:39 PM
Post #41 of 53 (1735 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Just in time for Halloween, for those looking to get their martyr on, the Anwar al-Awlaki drone missille attack gag!



Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 2:45 PM
Post #42 of 53 (1709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
No we are not tripping on our Constitution, unless you think it is unconstitutional to kill someone that is killing us, which it clearly is not (as the tower shooter example illustrates). We kill American citizens that are killing us all the time, and there is no Constitutional issue in doing so.

The tower shooter was an immediate risk. Someone conspiring to commit a crime is still just conspiring. Please don't confuse concern over the details of the how with disagreeing with the results. And, yes, we did trip over the constitution, we killed an american citizen with no due process.


ubu


Oct 4, 2011, 4:42 PM
Post #43 of 53 (1697 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1476

Re: [pinktricam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
Just in time for Halloween, for those looking to get their martyr on, the Anwar al-Awlaki drone missille attack gag!


Want.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 5:55 PM
Post #44 of 53 (1687 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
No we are not tripping on our Constitution, unless you think it is unconstitutional to kill someone that is killing us, which it clearly is not (as the tower shooter example illustrates). We kill American citizens that are killing us all the time, and there is no Constitutional issue in doing so.

The tower shooter was an immediate risk. Someone conspiring to commit a crime is still just conspiring. Please don't confuse concern over the details of the how with disagreeing with the results. And, yes, we did trip over the constitution, we killed an american citizen with no due process.

Seems to me you’re making up Constitutional standards that simply do not exist.

The government has the power, and the obligation, to provide for the common defense. There is no Constitutional constraint on defense actions based on immediacy of threat, not that I’m aware of. Perhaps you can show me where this exists. Immediacy is merely a planning detail.

There is also no Constitutional constraint against using military power against non-state actors. Nor is there a due process requirement for taking military action against non-state actors.

Even if there were this imaginary standard of immediacy, your argument still makes no sense, because…..

If the tower shooter puts down his rifle and starts eating a sandwich are we no longer allowed to take him out? What if he sits there "conspiring" for days on end, not shooting anyone? Do we have to wait until he picks up his rifle again? How long should we let that go on? 1 month? 2 months? Obviously, no. He has killed, and has the ability to kill again. You don’t wait until he’s killing again. You take him out when it is pragmatically possible, when you can get a good shot.

Al-Awlaki has already orchestrated attacks against us. He was eating his sandwich and planning his next shot. We get intel on where he will be, and it’s a very narrow window of opportunity. There is no pragmatic way to muster resources to his expected location and apprehend him. There is no way to know if we will have this opportunity again before he launches another attack. We take the shot. If we didn’t, the government would not be fulfilling its Constitutional defense obligation.

The argument is easily made that he was an immediate threat, based on both his past actions and current activity. He was hanging out with bomb-makers for fuck’s sake.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #45 of 53 (1672 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

First to the constitutionality. Let's start with the fifth.

In reply to:
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

Clearly this wasn't someone in service of the land or naval forces or Miilitia.
So what is public danger? More on this in a a bit, but we are lead back first to the fifth ammendment and the title of this thread
In reply to:
...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.

Clearly we have a deprivation of life without due process, but do we have a "public danger"?

... but first we need to trip into the fourth ammendment

In reply to:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

So, where does "unreasonable" search and siezures (see Miranda et. al.) hit between the forth and fifth?

(and can you smell wikipedia coming?)

So the closest case here is Tenesee vs. Garner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Tennessee_v._Garner

So here is the quote
In reply to:
The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

So, an unarmed man, driving in a foreign country does not, in my opinion, rate to the standard held by the Supreme Court.

So, back to your example - no, once the shooter puts down the gun (assuming it is not within immediate grasp) then the person can not be deprived of their constitutional liberties. It doesn't matter if they have killed one, ten, or ten thousand. Once the gun is down, they are unarmed and therefore the constitution must be respected.

It doesn't matter if one is conspiring with bombers, hookers, drug dealers, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists - the constitution still matters.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 9:05 PM
Post #46 of 53 (1663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
So, back to your example - no, once the shooter puts down the gun (assuming it is not within immediate grasp) then the person can not be deprived of their constitutional liberties. It doesn't matter if they have killed one, ten, or ten thousand. Once the gun is down, they are unarmed and therefore the constitution must be respected.

Rrrriiiight. So he puts down the gun, and we can't apprehend him, so we have to wait for him to pick up the gun again and start shooting and killing more people before we may do anything? Do you seriously not see the absolute absurdity of your position? Obviously, if he has set the gun down, but has not surrendered and we can't apprehend him, and there are potential victims in range, he is still a grave public danger.

I'm well aware of every word you quoted from the Constitution. None of that matters, because, like the tower sniper, you don't get to kill people and then maintain your position as a threat to public safety, and be protected via due process while maintaining that position of threat. If he wanted due process protection he could have surrendered, thereby relinquishing his position as a threat to our citizens. But he chose to continue actively waging war against us.

Al-Awlaki wasn't a public danger? He launched attacks against us. He was planning more attacks. It may be your opinion that he wasn't a threat, but given what we know about al Qaida, that would not seem to be a very well-informed opinion. Is there only a threat if a gun is pointed at someone? Do you not consider intent and means to carry out an attack as a threat? You don't consider waging war against us as a threat?

But none of the above matters anyway. He wasn't under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. He was a non-state actor in a foreign land waging war against us. So, like I already said, there is zero due-process constraint on military action.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 6, 2011, 12:51 PM
Post #47 of 53 (1583 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
So, back to your example - no, once the shooter puts down the gun (assuming it is not within immediate grasp) then the person can not be deprived of their constitutional liberties. It doesn't matter if they have killed one, ten, or ten thousand. Once the gun is down, they are unarmed and therefore the constitution must be respected.

Rrrriiiight. So he puts down the gun, and we can't apprehend him, so we have to wait for him to pick up the gun again and start shooting and killing more people before we may do anything? Do you seriously not see the absolute absurdity of your position? Obviously, if he has set the gun down, but has not surrendered and we can't apprehend him, and there are potential victims in range, he is still a grave public danger.

I'm well aware of every word you quoted from the Constitution. None of that matters, because, like the tower sniper, you don't get to kill people and then maintain your position as a threat to public safety, and be protected via due process while maintaining that position of threat. If he wanted due process protection he could have surrendered, thereby relinquishing his position as a threat to our citizens. But he chose to continue actively waging war against us.

Al-Awlaki wasn't a public danger? He launched attacks against us. He was planning more attacks. It may be your opinion that he wasn't a threat, but given what we know about al Qaida, that would not seem to be a very well-informed opinion. Is there only a threat if a gun is pointed at someone? Do you not consider intent and means to carry out an attack as a threat? You don't consider waging war against us as a threat?

But none of the above matters anyway. He wasn't under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. He was a non-state actor in a foreign land waging war against us. So, like I already said, there is zero due-process constraint on military action.

No we can apprehend any time, we can not just shoot without need.

And it gets better, we actually have death panels:
http://news.yahoo.com/...-list-041603267.html
In reply to:
Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.


Well if is just this once, then OK. It isn't like a panel planning to kill americans could ever be abused.


hugepedro


Oct 6, 2011, 1:32 PM
Post #48 of 53 (1575 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.


damienclimber


Oct 6, 2011, 2:29 PM
Post #49 of 53 (1563 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.



But you are!


hugepedro


Oct 6, 2011, 3:40 PM
Post #50 of 53 (1555 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [damienclimber] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

damienclimber wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.



But you are!

Isn't your mom home yet?


blondgecko
Moderator

Oct 6, 2011, 7:48 PM
Post #51 of 53 (280 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
damienclimber wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.



But you are!

Isn't your mom home yet?

Nah - we'll be done in half an hour or so.


hugepedro


Oct 6, 2011, 10:03 PM
Post #52 of 53 (271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [blondgecko] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
damienclimber wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.



But you are!

Isn't your mom home yet?

Nah - we'll be done in half an hour or so.

Stop bragging.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 15, 2011, 5:54 PM
Post #53 of 53 (227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
damienclimber wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.



But you are!

Isn't your mom home yet?

Nah - we'll be done in half an hour or so.

Stop bragging.

A fitting end to this thread.


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook