American citizsens who join al queda be stripped of citizenship...

First prove that said "enemy civilians" are what you say they are. Prove it in the court of law.

We have become what we hate; a nation of criminals and lawless terrorists.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*).

Obama is what?

There IS an international community. YOU are not that community. THEY have not levied charge... and you are not afforded the authority to... and if you label him... you label each. YOU have a Bush thing. A lot of people have an Obama thing.

I have an American thing. Each were my CIC. EACH I would take a bullet for. You don't get that... I understand. You couldn't. You aren't an American. All you know is what you were taught... poor little thing.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't even gather my position. Arguing against it is folly.

 

Some people take their word for it. Others take the New York Times" word for what they say. Until I see real evidence that primarily terrorists are not being killed by the drones, then yeah, I'll take their word for. Want to disprove them ? You have the opportunity. Let's hear it. But remember one thing. In all wars, civilians do get caught up in it, and get killed. Would all those criticizing the drones have opposed the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. And what would they then assess the ramifications ?

 

Where the (*)(*)(*)(*) are the conservatives?

 

176 children have been killed EXTRA-JUDICIALLY, WITHOUT THE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF WAR, and you don't see any problem with that?

By not declaring the drone strikes war, the United States has become a murderer!!

Is it war or not war?

If it is war, you needed to get congressional authorization and so it's ILLEGAL. An ILLEGAL WAR.

If it's not part of war, then it is MURDER.

Which is it!! One thing is for sure: You are a despicable murderous nation!! And you were murdering far before you planted puppet regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia and pissed off Usama Bin Laden!!

 

SO what are the "reports" ? (all over the place). And how valid are they ? And when has there ever been a war where civilians did not get killed. Would you have opposed the bomb on Hiroshima. If so what would your plan be for the consequences of that inaction ?

- - - Updated - - -

Who never picked up arms against our country. What are you talking about ?

 

I've already heard of their report. Have you heard this one ? >>>http://dawn.com/2011/03/09/most-of-those-killed-in-drone-attacks-were-terrorists-military/

 

Anwar al-Awlaki

Killed for being around bad guys is one thing. Ordering the execution of a person who dissents against the US government, without trial, who never took up arms against us... is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing precedent.

You get to hate the government. You get to try and sway opinion against our government. If your ONLY offense as an American is recruiting others to resist that government, you have committed no crime... even if you wear a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing turbin.

There but for the grace of God go I.


(*)(*)(*)(*) that.

 

No military troops ever murdered more civilians (and raped them as well) than your Russian World War II soldiers in Germany. (far before puppet regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia) US troops were also in Germany, at the same time period. Compared to the Russians, the American troops were like saints.

 

Marshal doesn't count. I do. Address me.

 

Anwar al Awlaki was an al Qaeda terrorist. He masterminded Major Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 US soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas (and 35 more shot and wounded), among other terrorist activities. You are addressed.

 

Might require an amendment change? Either way I'd support it except I don't think we should shoot them on sight; but only if they refuse to surrender when given the opportunity.

 

Sorry... I missed that trial.


Link?

 

I have four complaints that demand answers here:

1) According to what law is this so? Please quote and cite if possible.

2) How can Al Qaeda be "at war" with the US, legally, when the US never declared war on it and when it's not a state entity in the first place, but a private criminal organization?

3) Even if this is so, what is the process to determine whether a person has joined Al Qaeda? Is it trustworthy, accountable, and transparent? What is the evidentiary standard and burden of proof in determining that someone has joined Al Qaeda?

4) Where does it say that only US citizens have civil liberties protected by the US government, whereas the US government may violate non-citizens rights with impunity? Does this not violate the Geneva Conventions, as well as various executive orders banning assassinations?

 

Bump... and stuff.

 

I don't have any such opportunity. This is mainly top secret stuff. The decision making process, the target identification and specification of any evidence of wrongdoing is almost always absent. They do release a name every so often when they kill a high ranking enemy. But for the vast majority of other strikes, we have no idea.

So no, I can't prove them wrong, but that's not the way it's supposed to be. If you think it's okay to kill someone, you need to have darn good evidence to prove it. That's the point of due process. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Throw that out the window and then anything can be the case.

Now I wouldn't take the DoD's word for it on anything. They lie, continuously. I'd sooner trust Pinocchio.

Furthermore, they would say that anyway.. If they were doing assassinations for political allies (I think this is a possible explanation for why Yemen's president is so happy having his country bombed) or otherwise selling targets, or allowing other people to pick targets, which is very possible I believe, we'd be none the wiser. We'd have no way to know about it. So if they had more sinister reasons, they're not going to tell you.. Therefore what the DoD says, is what they would say.

Also, even if everything is 100% above board here, it still doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't set such a dangerous precedent. What if you get some president that's absolutely evil and psychotic? He could use the same "kill anyone we want" type approach based on mere accusatory labeling.

Transparency in government is so much more important than I think a lot of people realize.

Nevertheless your claim is unsubstantiated.

 

I disagree. This would have plenty of potential for abuse. In the event of a civil war, the goverment could just declare war on any organization it does not like. The problem is such a change in law would be handing over the determination of guilt from a jury of citizens to the government, special powers of which are held by the President.

The line between war and upholding individual rights is a blurry one.

 

I, too, think things like trials, judges, and a jury of your peers are silly and a waste of time. Let's skip the middle man. We should go straight from accusation to punishment...for the children or freedom, or something...

 

You clearly don't understand how al-Qaeda works, people don't go around publicly identifying themselves as belonging to the group.

The reason people suspected of belonging to al-Qaeda should get proper trials is that without trials you're giving the American military the power to decide who is or isn't an American citizen, and then summarily execute them. Of all the organizations I'd trust to judge people fairly the US (*)(*)(*)(*)ing army isn't exactly up the top of the list.

 

Is that the report where after clicking it, 10 Special Forces agents crash through the window of my flat and give me the "Good International Citizen's" award? I'm terrified to click a link from the US.

The other day somebody gave me a can of Coca-Cola which didn't fill all the way into a tourist's glass. I was scared to drink it, but not to be rude I fake drank it.

Is that the country you want to become?

 

Obama is the worst president this country has ever had.

Bush comes in second.

They are both constitution shredding, lawless war criminals and powerhungry psychopaths.

 

My point was to point out both Republicans and Democrats as equally guilty. If Bush ok'd them, then Obama used them. No one is excusable.

Drones may be targeted toward terrorists, but they have a number of nnocent civilian casualties as well. Of course, that might not matter to you since you probably believe that all Arabs are guilty, but what if the US targeted a terrorist in the United States that lived in the US right next to your family? What if you family was killed as a consequence of killing another terrorist? Is it still excusable to be indifferent to the "collateral damage"?

Yes, that's fine, but he still has to prove that the people he labels as irregular fighters are, in fact, irregular fighters. Irregular combatants is not a concept invented by Bush, it is- at least- as old as the Roman Empire. Armies have had to deal with irregular combat for centuries so this is no new shock or burden on the armed forces. Civilian resistance to an occupying army- whatever the reason they are there- no new phenomenon. Neither are the inaccurate and disproportionate retaliations that come of them.

 

2010: "Hey Meyers. Remember not to kill any bloated fat ones. They might be US citizens!"

2012: "Hey Meyers. Remember to file a writ to strip American of citizenship before killing any fat ones."

2014: "Hey Meyers. Remember if you kill any Americans it's only worth half points."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-al-awlaki-inspired-terror/story?id=14643383

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-hasans-mail-wait-join-afterlife/story?id=9130339&page=2

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/politics/hasan-fbi

 

Question 2) by al Qaeda killing thousands of Americans, by vowing to kill millions of Americans, and byAmericans killing al Qaeda in response.