Login to remove the ads!
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality

  1. #76
    Elite Member MontanaMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Evading P6 & P7
    Posts
    12,221

    Default

    If i hear one more personal attack, i will type while drunk, then you can cry! - Bugdoll
    (716): I'd call her a cunt, but she doesn't seem to have the depth or warmth
    Quote Originally Posted by shedevilang View Post
    (Replying to MontanaMama) This is some of the smartest shit I ever read

  2. #77
    Elite Member lurkur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,291

    Default

    At this point, they're only saving the Constitution just in case DC runs out of toilet paper. But it's been like that for years.

    And Mo, if it could be argued that, due to a number of court decisions and legal opinions, slavery was still technically permitted by the Constitution, would you be expecting us to swallow your arguments on why slavery is perfectly legit just because you twisted motley "scholarly" opinions into a pretzel and bedazzled them with fancy crystals of salt? And would it start out something like, "It's legal because people said it was legal! And it's not like they would enslave good people, just the bad ones!"

    And are people really so secure that, "as citizens," they are protected by the strip of swiss cheese that is known as the Constitution? Citizenship can be stripped away in a snap:

    v. 1.0 Any person born in America is an American citizen.

    v. 1.1 Any person born in America is an American citizen, unless we call them a native--then they are no longer a citizen and do not deserve rights because they are not really American.

    v. 1.2 Any person born in America is an American citizen, unless we call them a slave--then they are no longer a citizen and do not deserve rights because they are not really American.

    v. 1.3 Any person born in America is an American citizen, unless we call them a terrorist--then they are no longer a citizen and do not deserve rights because they are not really American.

    v. 1.4 Any person born in America is an American citizen, unless they are not, as determined by an undisclosed person with undisclosed credentials in an undisclosed location for undisclosed reasons--then they are no longer a citizen and do not deserve rights because they are not really American.

    v. 2.0 Any person born in America is an American citizen, until further notice.

  3. #78
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    39,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Okay, back to your scenario. If a guy, who is a U.S. citizen, bombs malls and racks up casualties, and goes abroad, admits to what he's done, is corroborated by his co-conspirators to have done this, pledges more attacks (and that 1 million civilian lives would be necessary to even the score), says "it's you or me", and then hides out in a lawless region where he cannot be arrested, I have no problem with a drone strike taking him out. He has joined, and operationally led forces that are in active conflict with the U.S. Government, and if he gets himself blown up, that's what happens.



    Do I think that the U.S. Government is the most heavily armed, prolific killer on the planet today? No. Not while Russia (Chechnya) and China (Tibet, Uighur provinces) still exist as sovereign countries. It doesn't put us in the greatest company, though.
    And those drones will not just kill him but other foreign nationals, or don't we matter because we're not American?

    Quote Originally Posted by fgg View Post
    please put your responses in pie charts so mohandas will understand and then we can move on.




    This seems relevant...

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaMama View Post
    Thats gonna hurt....



  4. #79
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    27,126

    Default

    They won't even acknowledge for the public record who makes the call. Insulation from potential criminal charges. Yep, this is all perfectly constitutional and legal. Nothing to see here folks.



    Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'



    American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

    There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

    The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

    The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

    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.

    The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

    In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.
    Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

    Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

    Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

    The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

    LAWYERS CONSULTED

    Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

    They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

    The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

    They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

    Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

    Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

    A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

    Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

    But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

    When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

    'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL'

    Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

    "Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

    The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

    But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

    For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

    There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

    But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

    Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

    Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

    U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

    While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.


    Secret panel can put Americans on kill list' | Reuters
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.

  5. #80
    Silver Member albatross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    They won't even acknowledge for the public record who makes the call. Insulation from potential criminal charges. Yep, this is all perfectly constitutional and legal. Nothing to see here folks.
    I'm sure there's nothing to worry about. How could a secret committee that decides who lives and who dies be at all dangerous?

    Cue reminder that Awlawki was a threat...
    Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a plastic rocket...

  6. #81
    Silver Member Working Girl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    On the chain gang
    Posts
    391

    Default

    MohandasKGanja;"VERY difficult to work up much outrage over the killing of a guy who specifically called for the indiscriminate killing of Americans around the world:"

    I give him the same sympathy he would have shown me or my family..none

  7. #82
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Then you're no better.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #83
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    14,396

    Default

    Ugh, it's not about sympathy. So the whole secret panel is just fucking lovely. I wonder what a girl has to do to get on that panel; I always joked about ruling with an iron fist one day and I think it could be the perfect thing to put on my resume.
    Posted from my iPhone
    KILLING ME WON'T BRING BACK YOUR GOD DAMNED HONEY!!!!!!!!!!

    Come on, let's have lots of drinks.

  9. #84
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    27,126

    Default

    In today's talking out of both sides of our mouth news:

    U.S. State Dept. contacts Khan family

    Official offers parents condolences on death of al-Qaida propagandist.







    An official from the U.S. State Department has called the Charlotte family of al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan to offer the government's condolences on his death in a U.S. drone attack last week in Yemen, according to a family spokesman.

    "They were very apologetic (for not calling the family sooner) and offered condolences," Jibril Hough said about the Thursday call from the State Department to Khan's father, Zafar.

    The phone call came a day after the family released a statement through Hough that condemned the "assassination" of their 25-year-old son - a U.S. citizen - and said they were "appalled" that they had not heard from the U.S. government to discuss their son's remains or answer questions about why Khan was not afforded due process.

    On Friday, State Department spokesman Harry Edwards confirmed to the Observer that the call had been made, but said "privacy issues" kept him from offering details.

    Hough said the Thursday conversation lasted a few minutes.

    "It wasn't just 'I'm sorry' and hang-up," said Hough, who added that the phone call included no discussion of the status or condition of Khan's remains.

    Khan was killed along with cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

    Also a U.S. citizen, al-Awlaki was a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and appeared to be the main target of the drone attack.
    Hough said Khan's father's reaction to the call was "kind of positive and optimistic."

    "The (family) statement appears to have gotten their attention."

    But, Hough added, the family would still like answers to the civil liberties-related questions.

    "The discussion doesn't stop with a phone call, though the contact was a step in the right direction," he said.

    Khan authored a radical blog while he lived in Charlotte - one his father, Hough and others unsuccessfully tried to persuade him to abandon. Then, in 2009, Khan moved to Yemen to produce al-Qaida's "Inspire," an English-language online magazine. In one early edition, Khan said he was "proud to be a traitor to America."

    One of his articles was titled "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."

    New York sightings

    Meanwhile, a New York congressman said Friday that federal authorities became aware of Khan when he contacted other suspected terrorists on Long Island in recent years.

    Rep. Peter King told The Associated Press that Khan was not the original target of investigators.

    King says Khan "came on their radar" between 2007 and 2009, when he was seen meeting with two terror suspects on Long Island.

    The congressman said those two suspects are still being watched.

    Newsday reported Friday that Khan had lived on Long Island for about a decade before moving to North Carolina in 2004.



    Read more: U.S. State Dept. contacts Khan family | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper
    Exit question: If it’s O.K to send a drone for Awlaki and Khan, both U.S. citizens, why are wasting time with KSM. Why not just execute him and be done with it?
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.

  10. #85
    Elite Member stef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    10,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    Who gets to decide who is worthy of assassination?
    nobel peace price winner obama, of course!


    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    This is a simple case of the president saying "He is a terrorist" and proclaiming that he retains the privilege to act as judge, jury, and executioner. He could just as easily declare you a terrorist and have you assassinated, for all the evidence he ever had to present to the scrutiny of a court (which is to say, none).

    It is so nice that so many trust Dear Leader to always kill the proper people.
    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want — including citizens — without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us. That was absolutely the principal justification offered by Bush followers for everything their Leader did — I know they’re Terrorists because My President said so, so no courts or evidence is required – and that is now exactly the mindset of Obama loyalists to justify what he does (back in December, 2005, I described that defense as the ”Very Bad People” justification for lawless, due-process-free acts).

    (...)

    The reason they do this is because they know it will work: as the Bush years proved, the American population is well-trained to screech Kill Him!! the minute the Government points to someone and utters the word “Terrorist“ (especially when that someone is brown with a Muslim-ish name, Muslim-ish clothes, and located in one of those Bad Muslim countries). If Our Government Leaders say that someone named “Anwar al-Awlaki” — who looks like this, went to a Bad Muslim-ish place like Yemen, and speaks ill of America — is a Bad Terrorist, then that settles that. It’s time to kill him. Given those “facts,” only a “civil libertarian absolutist” would think that things like “evidence” and “trials” are needed before accepting his guilt and justifying his state-sanctioned murder.
    great article and so true.

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    We don't know anything about Al-Awlaki, other than what the government has disseminated to the media, and which the media has dutifully printed. No one has claimed he's a good guy, but the Constitution doesn't only apply to people we like. If there is reams of evidence why will they not show it. Why was due process bypassed? That's the $64,000 question. Is it ok because Awlaki is bad? Timothy McVeigh- another terrorist- had more blood on his hands than Awlaki, and we gave him due process.
    exactly. i can't believe people believe anything the mass media tells them. the government can make up any story they want and the media will print it as the truth (like the ridiculous story about the iranian assassination plot).

    all in all i absolutely agree with you/montana/novice/grimm. this whole thing is horrifying. i'm not surprised this happened, but i am surprised that so many americans don't seem to care and stop thinking for themselves as soon as they hear the word "terror".
    "This is not meant to be at all offensive: You suffer from diarrhea of the mouth but constipation of the brain." - McJag

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 20th, 2011, 12:56 AM
  2. Yet another Barack Obama assassination "joke"/"free speech" sign
    By twitchy2.0 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2008, 03:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •