DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on April 07, 2010, 08:32:27 PM
-
NYT: U.S. approves killing of American cleric
The New York Times
9:07 AM EST April 7, 2010
The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counter terrorism officials said Tuesday. ...
It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=36208306 (http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=36208306)
-
Sorry. I now see MT posted the same article. His headline was so far off base that I didn't make the connection. I'll leave this up so we can have an intelligent debate on the issue rather then some hysterical rant.
BSB
-
Good suggestion
This subject was tackled earlier, when the complete disconnect between trying the 911 conspirators and other known Islamic terrorists in civil court, complete with full Constitutional protections, which would include the divulging of classified intelligence gathering tactics that the "defense has a right to see", while at the same time we're targeting and killing suspected terrorists with drones and other military assests....judge/jury/conviction, in the matter of seconds.
This topic is largely no difference. Regardless of whether this known terrorist is an "american citizen", if he is functioning as an militant islamic enemy combatant, who we are at war with, the 1st drone that sees him, takes him out. That is war. That is what these radical Islamic have brought about. They started it, we're going to have to finish it
IMHO
-
Well if we can have a British Subject elected president, conversely a Muslim cleric named Anwar al-Awlaqi that lives abroad and conspires to kill people should be eliminated with extreme prejudice. I would prefer it be done by a rogue assassination squad of patriotic Americans. And naturally the left is OK with this because after all George Bush didn't call for it. There are some terrorist elements in the US that need to be eliminated too but they go by names similar to Joe Smith and John Doe or Jane Doe. They pretend to be patriotic, where flag pins on their breasts and act like they are doing us all a favor all the while pushing the knife deeper into our backs. Hopefully in November they will get voted out of office and run out of town like your typical con man.
-
<<I'll leave this up so we can have an intelligent debate on the issue rather then some hysterical rant. >>
Yep, I can see your intelligent discussion is off to a promising start.
-
<<I'll leave this up so we can have an intelligent debate on the issue rather then some hysterical rant. >>
Yep, I can see your intelligent discussion is off to a promising start.
The enlightened Buddhist aka Back Street Boy's MO is to start off, right out of the gate, insulting somebody, then further into the discussion insult more person, then get mad after someone he insulted calls him Chester or Peg-leg and he hobbles off crying like a baby all the while blaming the guy the runs the saloon for allowing people to pick on him. That's what happens when mentally disturbed people have computers along with slow internet connections.
-
OBVIOUSLY if the Obama administration feels they can openly place Anwar al-Awlaqi on the kill or capture list they feel doing so can pass legal muster.
BSB
-
OBVIOUSLY if the Obama administration feels they can openly place Anwar al-Awlaqi on the kill or capture list they feel doing so can pass legal muster.
BSB
well you proudly admit to voting for Obama
-
<<OBVIOUSLY if the Obama administration feels they can openly place Anwar al-Awlaqi on the kill or capture list they feel doing so can pass legal muster.>>
Funny, I don't recall hearing the "or capture" part of that list title. And our friend was "openly placed" on the death list by anonymous "officials" of an un-named government department or departments. How's that for openness? And transparency?
But what a great way of disposing of annoying citizens. "Anonymous officials" of un-named government departments place you on a death list for targeted assassination. Sometimes you can even find out about it just by reading the NYT. The Fifth Amendment and trial by jury are so yesterday.
But obviously this must be legal or the government wouldn't feel they could get away with it. I bet they even took the precaution of getting John Yoo to OK it all in a memo. With footnotes.
Sure hope you haven't pissed off any U.S. government officials lately, BSB. Hear they can get pretty crochety at times.
-
Well, I understand, Snowblower, that your brains work a little slower then the rest of the worlds up there on the frozen tundra, so let me help you. The President has to give the OK before someone goes on the kill or CAPTURE list. So, yes, the Obama administration publicly placed Anwar al-Awlaqi on the list.
Your welcome, BSB
-
If an American were turned traitor in 1943 and was known to be in the feild working in Hitlers service would that be diffrent or the same?
-
<<If an American were turned traitor in 1943 and was known to be in the feild working in Hitlers service would that be diffrent or the same? >>
In the field? You mean on the battlefield, or sneaking around Washington trying to gather state secrets? IN German uniform or in civvies?
If he's on the battlefield in German uniform, he's fair game. The declaration of war takes care of that. Don't need a warrant. If he's not in uniform but on the battlefield and spying, he can be shot but I believe after due military process only. An officer has to make a finding first, how he does it I'm not sure.
If he's sneaking around Washington spying, he has to be apprehended, put on trial and punished only according to law. There is no authorization to kill spies on sight even in wartime.
-
<<Well, I understand, Snowblower, that your brains work a little slower then the rest of the worlds up there on the frozen tundra . . .>>
Yeah that must be why you went into Iraq but we didn't. Why you believed Bush's WMD story and we didn't.
<<The President has to give the OK before someone goes on the kill or CAPTURE list. So, yes, the Obama administration publicly placed Anwar al-Awlaqi on the list.>>
Where in the published accounts is the list referred to as kill or capture? And if not from the published accounts, how do you now what kind of list it is?
-
Why don't you try reading the published accounts, snowblower? You can start with the URL I posted.
Good lord!
-
<<Why don't you try reading the published accounts, snowblower? You can start with the URL I posted.>>
I read it. Then after you posted what I just quoted, I read it again. It had not changed since I first read it. There was no mention of a kill or capture list. The link referred only to targeted assassination. Kinda hard to see how the guy is gonna be captured by a robot drone anyway. "You. Will. Walk. In. Direction. Indicated. By. Green. Light. You. Are. Under. Arrest." They usually just smoke the guy.
-
Capture or kill is mentined twice and the lists held by the CIA and the military are mentioned twice also. But, never mind Canadian, I'm sure you'd know better then I.
BSB
-
Isn't that the MO? ;)
-
I read it. Then after you posted what I just quoted, I read it again. It had not changed since I first read it. There was no mention of a kill or capture list. The link referred only to targeted assassination.
Guess you missed these lines, then:
and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing.
Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.
-
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=36208306 (http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=36208306)
That's what BSB linked to and it's what I accessed. It consists of five paras. Numbering the five paras from top to bottom, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, in which numbered para do the words "capture or killing" or "capture or kill" appear?
BTW, the link does say "1 of 3" but there is no hyperlink from the first page linked to that will take me to any other page.
Furthermore, the phrase "capture or kill" does not in itself indicate that "kill" is in any way a second alternative or that "capture" is the preferred outcome. In itself it indicates that either outcome is equally acceptable, which is all but inviting the recipients of the order to murder the target.
-
You're such a waste of everyone's time, Blower.
Christian Science Monitor
A report Wednesday in The New York Times indicated that what triggered US officials putting the Muslim cleric on the kill-or-capture list was their determination that he was not only inciting attacks against the US but also "participating" in them.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror)
-
".....he was not only inciting attacks against the US but also "participating" in them. "
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror)
I think that makes him a warrior, a participant in the war , fair game in anyones book.
What is the alternative ?
-
BTW, the link does say "1 of 3" but there is no hyperlink from the first page linked to that will take me to any other page.
To the right of "1 of 3" there is a link labeled "Next >". I would have thought it would be obvious. You're so much smarter than us, you must be too smart to understand such simple stuff.
-
Here's a picture of it (click on picture for a larger version):
-
Just a note - I read entire articles before commenting. I don't just read page 1 of 3 and assume everything has been presented. Just like I don't read the first 20 or 30 pages of a 300 page novel and assume that I've extracted everything from that novel. But then again, I'm just a dummy, I'm not as smart as you are.
Just a bit of a hint. Your mileage might vary and all that.
-
<<You're such a waste of everyone's time, Blower. >>
I am crushed with the guilt of it all, and hereby implore "everyone" whose time I have wasted to please not allow me to waste even one more precious second of your time. Just let me flail away in the losing battle against my own ignorance and stupidity and sink ignored into the swamp of unknowing in which I was spawned. Thank you.
For those of you with a little more time to spare, it does appear that both the Christian Science Monitor and the NYT are referring to the same list, although the CSM version of the list is "Kill or Capture" and the NYT version is "Kill." Seems to be an unresolved issue at this point, which paper got the name and intent of the list correctly.
I would expect that the usual arrest warrant is NOT a warrant to "arrest or kill." Arrest" alone will probably do the trick, because a peace officer would be justified in the application of reasonable force to subdue resistance to arrest and even lethal force if necessary for self-defence where the resistance itself applies deadly force endangering the lives of the officers.
So that separate authorization to kill in an arrest warrant would be superfluous - - unless it were intended as something more than an explicit authorization of a power already available to the arresting officer by law. IMHO, the addition of a directive to kill in conjunction with an arrest order, particularly in such a flat "either or" dichotomy indicates that either outcome is equally acceptable. Basically, it is giving the officers of the state to whom it is directed an incitement to murder. It's just a whole lot easier to kill the guy than it is to arrest him.
-
<<".....he was not only inciting attacks against the US but also "participating" in them. ">>
I understand that is the US government's official explanation for why he's on the list. Obviously they need some kind of reason to put him on a death list, and an allegation of "participating" in attacks on U.S. targets would certainly sound like justification.
However, it's ONLY an unproven allegation and moreover it's one that comes from the same source as "Saddam has WMD hidden away in there" and "torture at Abu Ghraib was just the work of a few bad apples, not government policy" and "the guys in the helicopter were engaged in a gun battle with the dead civilians" and a few thousand other egregious lies, going back all the way to "They attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin." Why anybody still takes the word of those lying fucking bastards seriously today is a complete mystery to me. The simple fact is that the poor guy says things they don't like to hear and they don't like other people to hear, and so they marked him for death. The rest of their allegations are more likely than not just another part of their daily production quota of lies and bullshit.
Amazing how many times they can lie to you outrageously and yet you will still believe everything else they say. there's a word for that somewhere - - sucka.
What's funny is that the framers of the U.S. Constitution and particularly of the Fifth Amendment foresaw the whole situation unfold, over 200 years beforehand. They KNEW that the government, any government, could overreach itself and order its own citizens rubbed out for the most frivolous or sinister of reasons, and that's why the Fifth Amendment is there in the first place. IMHO, a "kill" list or a "kill or capture" list are virtually one or the same thing, the "or capture" being purely superfluous unless there is an intent to give added incentive to the kill order, with a veneer of legality. Both orders are clear violations of the Fifth.
-
<<To the right of "1 of 3" there is a link labeled "Next >". I would have thought it would be obvious.>>
Ooops, you're right. Sorry, guys.
<<You're so much smarter than us . . . >>
"Better informed" is probably the phrase you're looking for, I wouldn't say "smarter." I think some a you guys are pretty
smart, but totally brainwashed.
<<you must be too smart to understand such simple stuff.>>
Frankly, I don't see what smartness has to do with it - - the "next" link was positioned far to the extreme right, much like you guys in here, and I simply missed it. You're more observant than I am. BFD. Get over it, for chrissakes. Seeing the link in an unexpected place, apart from the main body of text, does not a genius make.
-
Waste of Time says, "..the NYT version is "Kill"..."
How many people have to show and tell you that the NYT's version also says "capture or killing", and not once but twice.
BSB
What a moron!
-
Still missing the point.
"Capture or kill" legitimizes the guy being killed as equally as it legitimizes his capture, and as such is a clear violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Only a fucking moron would equate being fingered by a bureaucrat with "due process."
-
No asshole, the point is you keep makin the same mistake over and over and over.
To your point? I don't care if they capture, kill, or fuck him.
BSB
BT, kick this shithead out of here.
-
<<To your point? I don't care if they capture, kill, or fuck him. >>
Basically then you don't give a shit about the 5th Amendment. It doesn't apply to anyone you don't like.
-
BT, kick this shithead out of here.
On what grounds?
-
<<To the right of "1 of 3" there is a link labeled "Next >". I would have thought it would be obvious.>>
Ooops, you're right. Sorry, guys.
<<You're so much smarter than us . . . >>
"Better informed" is probably the phrase you're looking for, I wouldn't say "smarter." I think some a you guys are pretty
smart, but totally brainwashed.
<<you must be too smart to understand such simple stuff.>>
Frankly, I don't see what smartness has to do with it - - the "next" link was positioned far to the extreme right, much like you guys in here, and I simply missed it. You're more observant than I am. BFD. Get over it, for chrissakes. Seeing the link in an unexpected place, apart from the main body of text, does not a genius make.
That explains it , ....
We should expect anything on the extreme right to fall into your blind side.
-
Lotsa things fall into my blind spot now, plane. I got a $130 ticket a few weeks ago and the cop asked me, "Did you not see the sign or did you not see me?" and I had to admit I did not see him OR the sign." Never happened to me before in my life, I've always seen either one or the other.
-
Warn me before you drive through Ga.
-
Don't worry, any Canadian driving through Georgia pays a LOT of attention to every sign on the road.
-
Amazing how many times they can lie to you outrageously and yet you will still believe everything else they say. there's a word for that somewhere - - sucka.
what....
kinda like "the money in Social Security is in a trust fund and we wont blow it all & make the system insolvent"
or
"dont worry the more us feds get involved in education the scores won't go down...we here to protect"
or
"don't worry we wont spend more than we take in & make the US a debtor nation after massive fiscal irresponsibility"
or
"don't worry we do such a great job controlling our borders, now we wanna take over your healthcare too"
or
"trust us ...we're going to lessen our dependence on foreign oil"
or
"dont worry about the colossal failure of government at every level...federal, state, & local after Katrina....we's just needs mo money!"
or
"don't worry we'll believe it when President Bill Clinton declares "The era of big government is over" before gvt growth
explodes & eventually takes over healthcare....."
or
"dont worry that both political parties are corrupt, just give us more money & power to solve your problems"
or
"it doesn't matter that we didnt read the healthcare bill, lets just vote on it"
or
"trust us we wont lose hundreds of laptops with sensitive national security info, personal census info, ect"
or
"trust us Iran wont get nukes"
or
"trust us we'll oversight Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD...everything's ok"
or
"trust us...we protect you...like buying FEMA trailers filled with formaldehyde"
or
"trust us we pledge more transparency...as we do more backroom deals to get bills passed"
or
"trust us we pledge to prohibit lobbyists and then we hire at least 40 lobbyist to work in senior positions
including three Cabinet secretaries and the CIA director"
or
ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect x 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
-
No, CU4, the examples you gave are more like conservative arguments than facts, arguments that might be believed by conservatives but are far from proven facts. They're more like examples of government incompetence and failure than outright lies, and in fact in many of the examples, they rely on vague accusations that aren't even factual (S.S.'s alleged "insolvency," the "colossal failure of government at every level," etc.) which are just windy accusations that are ridiculous on their face. Particular failures in one matter or another become "colossal failure on all levels," etc.
No, I was referring to one particular source of lies and bullshit that never fails to be caught again and again lying to the people and yet is still believed by some; the U.S. military:
- the torture at Abu Ghraib is an unauthorized aberration and represents "a few bad apples."
- our warships in the Gulf of Tonkin were attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats
- We know where the WMD are
- These photos show Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border
- We only waterboarded him three times (I forget the guy's name and it was 183 times)
- the folks we killed while taking fuel from the tankers were all armed insurgents
- the bound and gagged schoolkids (murdered by U.S. troops) were armed insurgents
- so were the women of the house, (also murdered by U.S. troops) armed insurgents
- the 14-year-old girl was raped and murdered by Sunni insurgents, who also murdered the rest of her family
including her six-year-old sister and set fire to the bodies (of course, U.S. Marines were actually
responsible, a fact which only came to light when one of them couldn't hold his shit together)
- no, they weren't armed insurgents, they were killed by accident in a gun battle (that never happened)
- the fifteen people killed from helicopter gunships in New Baghdad were killed in a gun battle (a gun battle that also never happened)
You see the difference, CU4? These are deliberate lies and misrepresentations of things that we now know (because of leaks, accidents, etc.) have occurred differently than as reported by the Pentagon or the DOD. Lies that would never have come to light except through means beyond the DOD's or the Pentagon's control. Your examples are basically nothing more than a bunch of examples of how conservatives THINK the "liberals" have fucked up the country.
You offer up conservative arguments, I offer up fact - - lies and the exposure of lies, not about theories or explanations, but about actual concrete events that really happened.
So that is why I say that anyone who STILL believes those lying bastards can ONLY be described in one word, and that one word is - - SUCKA.
-
As were Cu4's FACTS, so is Tee's latter