US says it may kill Americans abroad

[Marcus Bryant]

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/kill-americans/

[Winehole23]

Actually doing this, and saying absolutely nothing about it, makes some sense.

Announcing it as official policy seems facially impolitic to this wino and strikes an ominous tone, but there it is.

[ElNono]

Dupe? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145880)

[Winehole23]

The US government announces to the whole world it will target US citizens for assassination.

[ElNono]

The US government announces to the whole world it will target US citizens for assassination.

What makes you think they haven't already carried through with that? It's hard to deny ties with terrorist groups if you're already dead.

[Winehole23]

What makes you think they haven't already carried through with that? It's hard to deny ties with terrorist groups if you're already dead.I just think announcing it is a bad idea.

[Winehole23]

I assume it goes on everyday.

[ElNono]

Maybe we should just let this thread die down... somebody might decide we're a danger to other Americans...

[Winehole23]

Not killing Americans necessarily, just killing certain bad guys whenever they have a clear chance.

[Winehole23]

Maybe we should just let this thread die down... somebody might decide we're a danger to other Americans...No doubt someone already has. Fuck em.

[EVAY]

Actually doing this, and saying absolutely nothing about it, makes some sense.

Announcing it as official policy seems facially impolitic to this wino and strikes an ominous tone, but there it is.

I agree with you on this. Both parts.

I also agree with NoNo that it has already probably happenend, since it has been a policy since basically 9/11. I have no idea why Blair said somehting about it now, and I can't figure out why the congressman questioning Blair has changed his mind about whether or not it is a good idea.

Now, there IS the questionable positon of mirandizing a guy who just tried to blow up a plane (I know that the Bush administration did the same with the shoe bomber guy) and NOT mirandizing an American citizen, but then that is a topic for another thread (and I think we all had our say about it some time back). If the combination of these two things is not dissonant policy, I don't know what one would look like.

[EVAY]

Maybe we should just let this thread die down... somebody might decide we're a danger to other Americans...

Yeah, sure. I just read the last three pages of the thread on Republicans thinking that Obama was a socialist and I was actually laughing out loud in my living room. (You know, the whole Nazi-French thing?) The only thing that would happen if someone read these things is that they might die laughing.

I know you were just being facetious, Nono.

[Winehole23]

They used to pretend to disdain the "rough edges" of democracy and they pretended to care about the little guy. Now they don't even pretend to care.

They just say, we'll waste your ass.

[ElNono]

Yeah, sure. I just read the last three pages of the thread on Republicans thinking that Obama was a socialist and I was actually laughing out loud in my living room. (You know, the whole Nazi-French thing?) The only thing that would happen if someone read these things is that they might die laughing.

I know you were just being facetious, Nono.

I have nothing to worry about at the moment: I'm not an American citizen (yet) :lol

[ElNono]

One more thing: Is this the kind instance where invoking Nazis and Hitler is NOT Godwin's law?

[mogrovejo]

I thought this was old news and an unimportant event. :lol

[EVAY]

I have nothing to worry about at the moment: I'm not an American citizen (yet) :lol

Well, at least you'd probably get mirandized!:lol

I hope you become a citizen. We need thinkers.

[Winehole23]

I thought this was old news and an unimportant event. :lolThat's not exactly what you said in your own thread about this a few minutes ago. Change your tune much?

[ElNono]

I thought this was old news and an unimportant event. :lol

Who said it's unimportant?

[Winehole23]

Btw (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4053321&postcount=9), I liked Pete Hoekstra questions. He raises a very important question.

[Winehole23]

I posted it because I found Blair's testimony, which happened yesterday, rather extraordinary (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4053388&postcount=13).

[EVAY]

I thought that the question about what criteria were used was fair enough, although I thought it was predictable that it wouldn't be answered.

I thought that bringing up the topic at all was questionable, and I was surprised that a senator who evidenced no problem before this developed a problem at this somewhat late date in the policy's history.

[ElNono]

I believe this was rubber stamped by Congress in the fine print of the Military Commisions Act back in 2006. It probably has been in place through an Executive Order much before than that though.

[Winehole23]

Sure. That sounds believable.

[Winehole23]

Hell, it's even likely.

[EVAY]

I believe this was rubber stamped by Congress in the fine print of the Military Commisions Act back in 2006. It probably has been in place through an Executive Order much before than that though.

That's the impression I had. That the EO was in place pretty early, and normally the congressional committees are notified of these policies (regardless of whether or not they admit it in public).

[Winehole23]

It would be perverse in the extreme, but wouldn't it be preferable to at least require the President to demonstrate to a court that probable cause exists to warrant the assassination of an American citizen before the President should be allowed to order it? That would basically mean that courts would issue "assassination warrants" or "murder warrants" -- a repugnant idea given that they're tantamount to imposing the death sentence without a trial -- but isn't that minimal safeguard preferable to allowing the President unchecked authority to do it on his own, the very power he has now claimed for himself? And if the Fifth Amendment's explicit guarantee -- that one shall not be deprived of life without due process -- does not prohibit the U.S. Government from assassinating you without any process, what exactly does it prohibit?http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

[Winehole23]

And the most glaring question for those who critized Bush/Cheney detention policies but want to defend this: how could anyone possibly object to imprisoning foreign nationals without charges or due process at Guantanamo while approving of the assassination of U.S. citizens without any charges or due process? http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...men/index.html (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html)

[ElNono]

We've come full circle here with the Gitmo thread and my argument with elbamba. His novel interpretation of the 5th Amendment would basically means due process is suspended until further notice. I don't believe that to be he case at all.

[Winehole23]

I hope you're right about that.

[Wild Cobra]

I assume it goes on everyday.
Me too. Probably not daily, but I agree. I believe assassinations do take place. Announcing it just doesn't make sense. Are they trying to light another fire under bleeding heart liberals asses again?

[Wild Cobra]

It would be perverse in the extreme, but wouldn't it be preferable to at least require the President to demonstrate to a court that probable cause exists to warrant the assassination of an American citizen before the President should be allowed to order it? That would basically mean that courts would issue "assassination warrants" or "murder warrants" -- a repugnant idea given that they're tantamount to imposing the death sentence without a trial -- but isn't that minimal safeguard preferable to allowing the President unchecked authority to do it on his own, the very power he has now claimed for himself? And if the Fifth Amendment's explicit guarantee -- that one shall not be deprived of life without due process -- does not prohibit the U.S. Government from assassinating you without any process, what exactly does it prohibit?http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html
You think?

What about this from Article 1 section 8 of the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution):


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

This is a power on congress, without the need of a court order, and arguable a presidential power as well.

[Winehole23]

Me too. Probably not daily, but I agree. I believe assassinations do take place. Announcing it just doesn't make sense. Are they trying to light another fire under bleeding heart liberals asses again?God, that's a weird thought. But the part that goes before is not too different from mine.

[boutons_deux]

What difference does it make whether murdered-for-politics/because-we-can-murder human being is an American citizen or not?

Are American human beings better than non-American human beings?

[Winehole23]

Telling Americans you're going to blow them away is a new angle.

[Winehole23]

Assuming it as a possibility (the man who new too much) is one thing, having your government publicly announce it as a given, is another.

[Winehole23]

The difference is more than style.

[Marcus Bryant]

Predictably, the same crew is comfortable with the federal government killing American citizens without due process.

The odd thing is that they are rather comfortable with the great evil socialist leader claiming this power and exercising it.

This "War on Terror" has finished off what vestiges of the Constitution remained when it began.

[Stringer_Bell]

This "War on Terror" has finished off what vestiges of the Constitution remained when it began.

Have you even read the Constitution? Our founding fathers said we could do whatever the fcuk we want whenever the fcuk we want. If we gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette then we're sure as hell gonna put some cheese and bell peppers on that bitch while we're at it.

Better watch out, I'm on liberal bias alert. You can't spin here, not as good as me! :downspin:

[mavs>spurs2]

Exactly how many Americans are running off and joining Al Queda?

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, hey, what's to be concerned about when the state can brand a citizen a "terrorist" and execute them at will?

[Marcus Bryant]

Freedom isn't free, bub.

[Marcus Bryant]

You're either with us or you're against us.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm an Old Testament kind of Christian.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Constitution is just a goddammed piece of paper.

[boutons_deux]

"Old Testament kind of Christian"

Too bad their ain't no Christ in the OT.

[Marcus Bryant]

Nothing gets by you.

[MiamiHeat]

who reviews said intelligence to ensure that there is no doubt?

american citizens losing their right to trial, etc

sad

[Winehole23]

american citizens losing their right to trial, etc

sadIsn't it? Patriotic people used to get all huffy about stuff like this.

Now?

Not so much, apparently.

[ElNono]

Isn't it? Patriotic people used to get all huffy about stuff like this.

Now?

Not so much, apparently.

Why are you so ungrateful with the people that are trying to protect you?
Why do you hate America?

[Winehole23]

I never asked for the protection. I doubt I really need it. I'm an unwilling consumer, you might say.

[Winehole23]

Does the US Constitution say something about keeping us tucked in dry beds, safe from the marauding mitts of greasy bearded terrorists, that I missed the first time through?

[Winehole23]

Marque and reprisal?

[Winehole23]

Does it go back to piracy?

[Wild Cobra]

Marque and reprisal?


Does it go back to piracy?
I simply pointed out that there is a constitutional prevision that a judicial warrant is clearly not needed.

I think the purpose was because of piracy, but I'm not sure on that point.

[ElNono]

Does the US Constitution say something about keeping us tucked in dry beds, safe from the marauding mitts of greasy bearded terrorists, that I missed the first time through?

Depends. If you ask Dave Addington, he might find something in Article II about protection from men with robes...

[Winehole23]

I simply pointed out that there is a constitutional prevision that a judicial warrant is clearly not needed.Is it significant to you that marque and reprisal was originally included, and the sort of warrants issuing now aren't?

Special laws had to be passed to give them legal effect. We're way past the matter of finding a saving predicate in the US constitution or case law for the warrants, the authority is ultimately derived from the MCA of 2006 and the AUMF, plus the Patriot Act, (three acts of Congress) plus the say so of the US President on extrajudicial sanctions.

[Winehole23]

I hate how this policy made, and continues to make, the US President a jailer, a hitman and (maybe, again) a torturer.

Does anybody else see the problem, here?

Why do all these things fall on the President?

So some one should have to be personally responsible for jailing people indefinite under sometimes harsh conditions, or ordering them assassinated?

And that someone should be the President?

[Winehole23]

Does this kind of power strike anyone else as being somewhat regal in its discretion?

[Winehole23]

http://www.ebarch.com/projects.php?id=9&view=descr

[sabar]

The state already kills Americans at home, occasionally with no due process.

The act of doing it abroad makes us literally a world police force. The use of deadly force being alright if someone is in danger is the usual cop rule. Put it on the president and the whole world and add a little paranoia from 9/11. Everything is justified to the suits and the public thinks they're safe.


Does this kind of power strike anyone else as being somewhat regal in its discretion?

How many people actually realize how the executive has expanded since the inception of the U.S.A? It doesn't take a crystal ball to plot a trend into the future. At least we will all be dead before we bow to a king. The next few generations? Maybe not. Add in the trend towards a world government and who knows where we are headed.

[ElNono]

My mention of Dave Addington was no casual... goes hand in hand with sabar's last point...

[MiamiHeat]

i just wanted to repeat the obvious

American citizens killed, by their own government, deprived to the right to go to trial, to defend themselves in a court of law.

i can hardly believe i am typing that.

but i am not surprised, because Average Joe and Mary have been sucked dry of their blood and savings, burdened with debt, the death of overtime, the stagnation of wages, outsourcing, the rise in cost of health care, shady financial business practices, the loss of the power of a citizen's vote and political funding, fear of terrorism, fear fear fear,

eh. people have too many things to worry about now to put up a fight for stuff like this anymore.

sad times.

[Wild Cobra]

i just wanted to repeat the obvious

American citizens killed, by their own government, deprived to the right to go to trial, to defend themselves in a court of law.

i can hardly believe i am typing that.

but i am not surprised, because Average Joe and Mary have been sucked dry of their blood and savings, burdened with debt, the death of overtime, the stagnation of wages, outsourcing, the rise in cost of health care, shady financial business practices, the loss of the power of a citizen's vote and political funding, fear of terrorism, fear fear fear,

eh. people have too many things to worry about now to put up a fight for stuff like this anymore.

sad times.
I have similar feelings. I'll leave it at that rather than starting more controversy, except to say, I'm sure there can be times when the actions are justified.

[Winehole23]

The state already kills Americans at home, occasionally with no due process.I understand doing it covertly, all the while preserving the plausible deniability of key political figures. Making it official US policy directed by the President of the USA puzzles me a bit.


The act of doing it abroad makes us literally a world police force.Putting US citizens on notice in effect puts everyone else on notice too. I agree it makes us look like world police, but would add that has been the implicit paradigm (global force projection) for quite some time.


The use of deadly force being alright if someone is in danger is the usual cop rule. Put it on the president and the whole world and add a little paranoia from 9/11. Everything is justified to the suits and the public thinks they're safe.Until the next attack, yes.

No doubt the failure of government measures to protect us next time will be cited as cause to sacrifice yet more civil liberties and personal privacy on the altar of our insecurity.


How many people actually realize how the executive has expanded since the inception of the U.S.A? Between the Civil War and Grover Cleveland not much, but starting with Cleveland they get more and more powerful.

Progressivism advertised and delivered an activist state, Wilson first attached the incomes of Americans to their government, then he took us to war in Europe "to keep the world safe for Democracy," after promising to keep us out in 1916.

Starting with FDR (New Deal) and Truman (National Security Act of 1947) there is a quantum leap: the Cold War kept centralization on the front burner practically until the present, and terrorism appears to intensify the trend.


It doesn't take a crystal ball to plot a trend into the future. At least we will all be dead before we bow to a king.One can hope.

Reviving outlawry is an ominous note; the amplitude of extrajudicial hanky-panky and the prospect of show trials in the USA, are chilling


The next few generations? Maybe not. Add in the trend towards a world government and who knows where we are headed.Quien sabe?

I am less sure about the prospect of world government perhaps than you.

Europe can't even get its shit together, but the whole world? Forget it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Does the US Constitution say something about keeping us tucked in dry beds, safe from the marauding mitts of greasy bearded terrorists, that I missed the first time through?

Right. Plenty are quick to drop Franklin's quote about those willing to part with liberty for security deserving neither, but that is precisely what is offered by their favorite politicians today.

Yes, we are progressing towards one unified, standardized, and homogenized America, at a much more rapid pace than ever before. Oddly enough, we think that we've never been more free or more individualistic.

[Winehole23]

I have similar feelings. I'll leave it at that rather than starting more controversy, except to say, I'm sure there can be times when the actions are justified.Such faith in the capacity and bona fides of government is unusual in these pages...

...except as propounded by you, regarding the very extremest countermeasures of power.

How utterly simple and generous of you. I have not seen such faith in all of Texas.

[Wild Cobra]

Such faith in the capacity and bona fides of government is unusual in these pages...

...except as propounded by you, regarding the very extremest countermeasures of power.

How utterly simple and generous of you. I have not seen such faith in all of Texas.
There you go again, misunderstanding me.

I never said I had such faith, and saying I'm sure something can be justified does not mean I would agree with their decisions.

Is English your second language by chance?

[Winehole23]

I never said I had such faith, and saying I'm sure something can be justified does not mean I would agree with their decisions.So when you said:


I'm sure there can be times when the actions are justified....you meant us to infer nothing whatsoever about whether that justification was ultimately amenable to you, even though you were *sure of it*. Nothing.

Hence your reference to justification was pro forma rather than technical, and not meant to endorse any conclusions already baked in the process.

Were you afraid this by now very carefully hedged bit o' provocation:


I'm sure there can be times when the actions are justified....would cause a riot or something?

...if you are avoiding saying anything at all about the actions or the justifications in advance, as you seem to have suggested, how could there have been any foreseeable controversy in connection with what you were about to say?

Whence therrefore, the conceit of reluctance?

[Wild Cobra]

So when you said:

...you meant us to infer nothing whatsoever about whether that justification was ultimately amenable to you, even though you were *sure of it*. Nothing.

Hence your reference to justification was pro forma rather than technical, and not meant to endorse any conclusions already baked in the process.

Were you afraid of this by now very carefully hedged bit o' provocation:

...would cause a riot or something?

...if you are avoiding saying anything at all about the actions or the justifications in advance, as you seem to have suggested, how could there have been any foreseeable controversy in connection with what you were about to say?

Whence therrefore, the conceit of reluctance?
Keep guessing...

Maybe some day you'll start understanding my perspective isn't so alien.

What is a justification? A reason someone forms for an action. You or I may or may not agree with someone elses justification. This is an area that becomes a huge grey line. I'm even unsure myself where I can find justification for such actions, but I'll bet I could under some. I'll bet you could too. We will likely disagree in what is and is not justified, but we all can find such a point I bet.

[Winehole23]

This is like saying different people have different opinions. It's a fucking commonplace, WC.

You thought talking about this was provocative?

[Wild Cobra]

This is like saying different people have different opinions. It's a fucking commonplace, WC.

You thought talking about this was provocative?

Provocative, No.

Ever think that maybe I like to see how people respond to simple remarks. See what people like you read into them. How your bias influences what you think I meant?

How many times have I remarked about parsing words correctly?

[Winehole23]

And on top of it all, what you ultimately meant by *sure* was not sure, not sure at all. lol.

[Winehole23]

Not sure about the actions, nor about their possible justifications. Now you're pretending you meant nothing by it...

[Winehole23]

When a minute ago you were pretending to be wary of starting a row.

[Winehole23]

Which am I to believe? Then or now?

[admiralsnackbar]

Provocative, No.

Ever think that maybe I like to see how people respond to simple remarks. See what people like you read into them. How your bias influences what you think I meant?

How many times have I remarked about parsing words correctly?

Never figured you for a jedi.

Still don't.

[Wild Cobra]

Never figured you for a jedi.

Still don't.
May the force be with us all.

[admiralsnackbar]

May the force be with us all.

Still don't.

[MiamiHeat]

5th amendment, bill of rights

No person shall be held to answer for any 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[MiamiHeat]

6th amendment, bill of rights

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

[ElNono]

5th amendment, bill of rights

No person shall be held to answer for any 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


6th amendment, bill of rights

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

That's a goddamn piece of paper you're quoting...

[Wild Cobra]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
That's why such assassinations are done in other countries.

[Winehole23]

6th amendment, bill of rights

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.Fuck that. On the say so of the POTUS, all of that is nugatory.

[Winehole23]

Fuckin outlaw.

[Winehole23]

Why do you love the terrorists, MH?

[Winehole23]

:lol