Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Watch the sniper scopes on the roof tops as you start your trot.
You watch too much TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Um. No, not really. Simply because a nurse is aiding a wounded soldier does not give our military the right to walk up and shoot her in the head. Just because a scientist developed an atom bomb doesn't give the CIA or any one of the military's special forces the ability to stalk and kill him.
Nurse no. He/she is covered by Geneva. Scientist, absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
There are rules to war. Infact, if an enemy surrenders, it is against the Geneva Convention to kill him... no scratch that... harm him.
That's what I've been saying all along. You're very slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
If this guy comes out of hiding long enough, this order from the president gives them the right to shoot and kill him. No questions asked.
Until he surrenders he's a target. That's the way war works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
That isn't how we operate. War or not.
No only during war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Again. He is and never was a citizen of this country.
Contradiction, but it doesn't matter. He's an enemy combatant. We kill them. His citizenship is something for the courts to figure out after he is a prisoner. Until he's a prisoner, he's at risk.
Absolutely, in all of the discussions regarding the trial for suspected terrorists being held at Gitmo, I have held my belief that the Constitution of the United States is established and provided for as a means of rule between the government and the citizens. I don't believe that non-citizens have the same rights for Constitutional protections established for citizens of this country.
Thus, though I oppose a criminal trial proceeding for foreign terrorist, I support the right to due process for this US citizen.
In my opinion, he wouldn't come home willing to face his judgers, thus he would probably die trying to capture him anyway. But the order should be to arrest him, only using deadly force as they apply to the law of the land here.
First of all, you bought into sensationalism that the headline meant to deliver. And you were either incapable of thinking for yourself, or you went the typical partisan hack route owing to your blind hatred towards Obama and any decision he is involved in.
The fact is, this isn't an order to assassinate a US citizen. It involves a procedure where White House must approve that actions against a US citizen who falls under every definition of terrorism that you all apparently hate (but with your stand in this thread, I have beginning to doubt it), that an action against him could get him killed.
To anybody but with the simplest of minds, this is not an order to kill, but to authorize that the person be caught dead or alive (again, with the possibility of death of a US citizen, the President's authorization is needed).
What do you propose, let him get away if we can't catch him alive?
First of all, you bought into sensationalism that the headline meant to deliver. And you were either incapable of thinking for yourself, or you went the typical partisan hack route owing to your blind hatred towards Obama and any decision he is involved in.
The fact is, this isn't an order to assassinate a US citizen. It involves a procedure where White House must approve that actions against a US citizen who falls under every definition of terrorism that you all apparently hate (but with your stand in this thread, I have beginning to doubt it), that an action against him could get him killed.
To anybody but with the simplest of minds, this is not an order to kill, but to authorize that the person be caught dead or alive (again, with the possibility of death of a US citizen, the President's authorization is needed).
What do you propose, let him get away if we can't catch him alive?
I respond to your question with a logical thought out response. Bolded above is the classless nature of your response, attempting to speculate how you percieve me understanding my own response, in a manner which apparently makes your response appear validated against what you try to percieve as my ignorance.
People that have logical, rational, and intelligent responses don't need to stoop to such juvinile levels in order to attempt to "win" a debate.
I am going to go ahead and not honor your immature behavior with a response justifying my own opinions. Your attempts to make me take a defensive position or feel the need to justify my own opinion isn't going to work. You can play your little game with others, I am not interested.
Grow up.
I will leave you with one little bit of information as provided in the OPs source:
"The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations."
Sure sounds like an order to assassinate to me. Infact... they already tried once.
"Anwar al-Aulaqi, who resides in Yemen, was previously placed on a target list maintained by the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations Command and has survived at least one strike carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. assistance..."
Run along now, the adults would like to have a conversation.
I respond to your question with a logical thought out response. Bolded above is the classless nature of your response, attempting to speculate how you percieve me understanding my own response, in a manner which apparently makes your response appear validated against what you try to percieve as my ignorance.
People that have logical, rational, and intelligent responses don't need to stoop to such juvinile levels in order to attempt to "win" a debate.
I am going to go ahead and not honor your immature behavior with a response justifying my own opinions. Your attempts to make me take a defensive position or feel the need to justify my own opinion isn't going to work. You can play your little game with others, I am not interested.
Grow up.
I will leave you with one little bit of information as provided in the OPs source:
"The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations."
Sure sounds like an order to assassinate to me. Infact... they already tried once.
"Anwar al-Aulaqi, who resides in Yemen, was previously placed on a target list maintained by the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations Command and has survived at least one strike carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. assistance..."
Run along now, the adults would like to have a conversation.
You are in no position to talk about class (or lack of). Having said that, you forgot to answer my question. Here it is again:
"What do you propose, let him get away if we can't catch him alive?"
Trust me, I know sensationalism works. It certainly did in your case. Going back to my lack of class in pointing that out, voluntarily or involuntarily, the answer to above question is critical to discussing this issue.
I think it was you (or the OP) who had claimed the President was abusing power, to which I asked (and never got a response to that either)... how is it abusing power? (Hint: it is a process CIA must follow).
Regardless, do you even have a clue why this approval was necessary, and what it entails?
You are in no position to talk about class (or lack of). Having said that, you forgot to answer my question. Here it is again:
"What do you propose, let him get away if we can't catch him alive?"
Trust me, I know sensationalism works. It certainly did in your case. Going back to my lack of class in pointing that out, voluntarily or involuntarily, the answer to above question is critical to discussing this issue.
I think it was you (or the OP) who had claimed the President was abusing power, to which I asked (and never got a response to that either)... how is it abusing power? (Hint: it is a process CIA must follow).
Regardless, do you even have a clue why this approval was necessary, and what it entails?
Thanks for answering respectfully.
To answer your question:
The US government, and their various agencies, have the ability and means to capture or attempt to capture unharmed any person the US government deems to be a security risk. We obviously already knew where he was once, since we hit the building he was in with a predetor.
As far as your other question, about letting him get away alive if we can't capture him. I already said once that if he man poses a life threatening danger during capture, then obviously the people assigned the task should kill him... just as they would do in this country.
Now for my own questions.
Lets simply imagine that there was a mistake in the intelligence, since we know that it happens. WMDs anyone? Lets assume that this man now in Yemen was not actually connected to the crotch bomber and is running for fear of his life, which you support taking.
At what point did you deem it ok to void out the parts of the constitution which protect US citizens with a quick speedy trial judged by ones peers?
Even in cases of treason... this right to judgement is afforded to US citizens. Is it not?
The US government, and their various agencies, have the ability and means to capture or attempt to capture unharmed any person the US government deems to be a security risk. We obviously already knew where he was once, since we hit the building he was in with a predetor.
As far as your other question, about letting him get away alive if we can't capture him. I already said once that if he man poses a life threatening danger during capture,then obviously the people assigned the task should kill him... just as they would do in this country.
And that is exactly why an approval was required from the President, who holds the authority if the person happens to be a US citizen. There is a possibility that the man may not be captured alive. Would you have preferred the President to say no?
Quote:
Lets simply imagine that there was a mistake in the intelligence, since we know that it happens. WMDs anyone? Lets assume that this man now in Yemen was not actually connected to the crotch bomber and is running for fear of his life, which you support taking.
:
At what point did you deem it ok to void out the parts of the constitution which protect US citizens with a quick speedy trial judged by ones peers?
Even in cases of treason... this right to judgement is afforded to US citizens. Is it not?
Yes it is. That is why, and I'm sure, killing him is NOT the first option. Are you sure that it is, as opposed to capturing him alive?
If you read the papers like I do, you should be aware that we've made a huge dent in the Al Queda and Taliban leadership in Afghanistan and nearby Pakistan.
The only news I get is what I can hear on TV and what I can read online. I wish I could read newspapers, but they don't print them in Braille (I'm blind).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
