Which, admittedly, doesn't give him much to worry about, but still....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp
You'll note he can be assassinated no matter how far from a battlefield he is, and that the basis for his targeting is the say of US intelligence officials, not conviction for his role in terrorist attacks, which remain unproven (as an aside, look up his history on Wikipedia...you'll see about the only thing he hasn't been accused of is being linked to the killers of Princess Diana).
Now personally, I think assassination is a much more preferable way of waging war than sending 200,000 soldiers tromping around the place, but on the other hand, I can't say that Obama and the CIA's legion of killer flying monkeys robots exactly inspire me with confidence. Because, of course, anything America is willing to do to a citizen, it is willing to do ten times over to a foreigner. On the basis of spook gossip and disinformation, no less. It's kinda like how I have little qualms about having to defend myself using potentially lethal force, yet the death penalty, when used by the state, bothers me. I know I could be trusted with such a tool, but I sure as hell can't say the same about them.
Anyway, your President has basically not only assumed he has the power to extra-legally execute his own citizens, he is now actively ordering it. Think happy thoughts.
In all honesty, i imagine there's enough evidence to warrant a call like this. And i imagine its been slightly thrown out of context.
If it prevents another timothy mcveigh, and there's proof of it, then i'd personally say "use of deadly force to kill this fucking asshole is authorized. Oh, and btw, if you can bring him in, that's cool too. if not, no worries."
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:33:18 AM
In all honesty, i imagine there's enough evidence to warrant a call like this. And i imagine its been slightly thrown out of context.
If it prevents another timothy mcveigh, and there's proof of it, then i'd personally say "use of deadly force to kill this fucking asshole is authorized. Oh, and btw, if you can bring him in, that's cool too. if not, no worries."
I imagine YOU have terrorist leanings. Ergo, we have to kill you while you're taking a shit, with Hellfire missile through the crapper window.
You weren't convicted, and it's all supposition, but we can't be too careful.
I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.
Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:48:26 AM
I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.
Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.
And the government always tells us the truth, and can be trusted with the ability to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, when "terrorism" is involved.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 05:49:47 AM
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:48:26 AM
I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.
Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.
And the government always tells us the truth, and can be trusted with the ability to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, when "terrorism" is involved.
This topic will arise again, i've no doubt. And i imagine it'll be a lot closer to home. I'll save my rabble rabble rabble for when it does.
The CIA's had a list of "people it's ok to cap" since the cold war. This one just happens to be some guy that was born in the lower 48.
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:54:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 05:49:47 AM
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:48:26 AM
I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.
Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.
And the government always tells us the truth, and can be trusted with the ability to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, when "terrorism" is involved.
This topic will arise again, i've no doubt. And i imagine it'll be a lot closer to home. I'll save my rabble rabble rabble for when it does.
The CIA's had a list of "people it's ok to cap" since the cold war. This one just happens to be some guy that was born in the lower 48.
You're okay with this? For real?
When, exactly, did rule of law go belly-up?
I only started following politics a year or two ago, but it seems I can't remember.
QuoteCIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."
Which is great, except for when the law allows the execution of citizens on basis of suspicion.
Quote from: Remington on April 08, 2010, 06:39:57 AM
When, exactly, did rule of law go belly-up?
Some parts of it have always been that way, but not so openly. This modern trend began under Bush, who didn't mind being the bad guy to set the precedent, and it seems like Obama has the political cover to expand on it without consequence. Bush did it out of conviction, but I suspect Obama is doing it out of convenience.
Quote from: Nast on April 08, 2010, 06:44:19 AM
QuoteCIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."
Which is great, except for when the law allows the execution of citizens on basis of suspicion.
. . . back to the law of the jungle then . . .
and Remington - the law is doing just fine . . . its just not the law you wanted
Quote from: MMIX on April 08, 2010, 09:36:56 AM
Quote from: Nast on April 08, 2010, 06:44:19 AM
QuoteCIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."
Which is great, except for when the law allows the execution of citizens on basis of suspicion.
. . . back to the law of the jungle then . . .
and Remington - the law is doing just fine . . . its just not the law you wanted
Well yes, I am a bit concerned about a law that allows a government to execute its own people without evidence or trial.
Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be?
The sad thing is that I am not really surprised, or shocked. After the whole gobbledegook with indefinite suspension it's now officially okay to execute anyone on this earth without trial if that person is deemed to be a threat to the state.
Everyone cheers and soon we will have one happy world free of TERROR.
Oh wait - :horrormirth:
~planeswalker
waiting for the thought police to arrive
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 05:46:41 AM
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:33:18 AM
In all honesty, i imagine there's enough evidence to warrant a call like this. And i imagine its been slightly thrown out of context.
If it prevents another timothy mcveigh, and there's proof of it, then i'd personally say "use of deadly force to kill this fucking asshole is authorized. Oh, and btw, if you can bring him in, that's cool too. if not, no worries."
I imagine YOU have terrorist leanings. Ergo, we have to kill you while you're taking a shit, with Hellfire missile through the crapper window.
You weren't convicted, and it's all supposition, but we can't be too careful.
Well, he has been repeatedly trying to persuade people to attack the United States and he is actively participating in attacks now. Fuck yeah, lets kill Dags.
This just in: New evidence shows Anwar al-Awlaki killed Princess Diana.
There is a marked difference between CIA case officers offing people, CIA station chiefs ordering case officers to kill people and the President of the United States declaring it's perfectly OK for him to have people executed because he said so. The former are crimes, whereas the latter is now apparently perfectly legal and absolutely nothing to worry about.
Even The National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmEyNmVmYjMyZWVhODQzYjVkNGQ5NDZiZDcxMmFjODc), who backed Bush to the hilt over all matters related to the war on terror, think Obama is nuts for doing this, and criticizing him from the left:
QuoteSurely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. . . . Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent.
So, should be fun once Palin gets her hands on this little executive privilege, right?
Heh.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL!
\
(http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/07/04/25_frostnixon_lg.jpg)
Pffft, silly people and your rule of law... what means this 'rule of law'? Do you say that before now we waged war legally? That we dotted our I's and crossed our T's and somehow we have only recently started whacking people for fun and profit? The rule of law doesn't exist for the leaders, thats for the hoi polli, just as it has been in every nation.
Silly people, rule of law... :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
While your cynicism is amusing Rat, it does seem to be blinding you to some pertinent facts here, namely the legalization of assassination. In the past, shit like this had to at least be kept quiet and, if the would-be assassins screwed up (and they would, since they were almost always CIA) then there could be legal repurcussions. Which is why it was used sparingly and with inbetweens, who would act as fall men for the people actually ordering the hit. Also, because of these issues, it actually was often deployed against targets which actually mattered.
However, now it has been declared and asserted that executive assassination is a legal tool, which will massively expand its use as a tactic, precisely because it no longer needs to be used sparingly and under conditions of secrecy. The Preznit can just go on air and say "lets whack this guy" and it's on. And like a kid with a new toy, you can bet it'll soon be advocated as a solution to nearly every problem, regardless of actual effectiveness or need.
Quote from: Cain on April 08, 2010, 03:29:11 PM
While your cynicism is amusing Rat, it does seem to be blinding you to some pertinent facts here, namely the legalization of assassination. In the past, shit like this had to at least be kept quiet and, if the would-be assassins screwed up (and they would, since they were almost always CIA) then there could be legal repercussions. Which is why it was used sparingly and with inbetweens, who would act as fall men for the people actually ordering the hit. Also, because of these issues, it actually was often deployed against targets which actually mattered.
However, now it has been declared and asserted that executive assassination is a legal tool, which will massively expand its use as a tactic, precisely because it no longer needs to be used sparingly and under conditions of secrecy. The Preznit can just go on air and say "lets whack this guy" and it's on. And like a kid with a new toy, you can bet it'll soon be advocated as a solution to nearly every problem, regardless of actual effectiveness or need.
I do understand that Cain. I am simply unsurprised... I'm sure we used to secretly wiretap people too... and secretly held people without charges... and well secretly did a lot of bad, no-good stuff.
So we laugh or cry, cause they got all the guns, flamethrowers and drones... so fighting it is a losing proposition. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 06:16:01 AM
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:54:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 05:49:47 AM
Quote from: Da6s on April 08, 2010, 05:48:26 AM
I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.
Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.
And the government always tells us the truth, and can be trusted with the ability to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, when "terrorism" is involved.
This topic will arise again, i've no doubt. And i imagine it'll be a lot closer to home. I'll save my rabble rabble rabble for when it does.
The CIA's had a list of "people it's ok to cap" since the cold war. This one just happens to be some guy that was born in the lower 48.
You're okay with this? For real?
Not really. But it was the only topic i could have possibly had any fun with last night.
Too bad it didn't pick up then.