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.
This is old story, refurbished. Learn the law, don't simply read the links presented to you as a gift wrapped in a cover to your liking.
The person involved is responsible to contact the US consulate and come clean, stand trial if necessary. Why does he have the need to be in the area where drones have been looking for targets? Why would you run from legal process, instead choosing to be in one of the most hostile environments which is a breeding ground against your OWN country? May be you would, I won't.
If he is captured alive, he will stand trial. It is only logical to understand that the law doesn't require him to be killed, but that he could get killed and this law, that has existed for a long time, be used to get the clearance for the potential. Learn the difference.
Actually he's not in an area where drones are flying.
This ruling by Obama allows them to fly drones where they don't normally.
Plus the drones were authorized by Congress as defense mechanisms, not assassination mechanisms.
Their use as assassination mechanism is forbidden by that Executive Order.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/wo...awlaki.html?hp
"But the disclosure last month by news organizations that Mr. Awlaki, 39, had been added to the C.I.A. kill list shifted the terms of the legal debate in several ways. He is located far from hostilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the perpetrators of 9/11 are believed to be hiding. "
Last edited by HappyTexan; 05-14-2010 at 11:44 AM..
Actually he's not in an area where drones are flying.
This ruling by Obama allows them to fly drones where they don't normally.
And why must we limit drones to only where they fly today? Who decided their routes? Who decides them now?
You didn't care about the rest of the post. Is it not the person's responsibility to contact the US government/forces and come clean and save the trouble, potentially getting killed?
This is old story, refurbished. Learn the law, don't simply read the links presented to you as a gift wrapped in a cover to your liking.
The person involved is responsible to contact the US consulate and come clean, stand trial if necessary. Why does he have the need to be in the area where drones have been looking for targets? Why would you run from legal process, instead choosing to be in one of the most hostile environments which is a breeding ground against your OWN country? May be you would, I won't.
If he is captured alive, he will stand trial. It is only logical to understand that the law doesn't require him to be killed, but that he could get killed and this law, that has existed for a long time, be used to get the clearance for the potential. Learn the difference.
Could you link to this "law" or policy you are referring to?
I'm totally unaware of it and I ask out of ignorance.
To almost all of the right. These are not principled Libertarians that respect the Constitution. What we have today are fake Conservatives. They're in reality Authoritarians. They have no principles other than those in power get to make the rules. When they are voted out of power they dust off their Libertarian, gun rights, States rights, arguments and pretend how much they revere Ron Paul. The overwhelming majority of liberals in this forum do not support what Obama has done in regards to the civil liberties, and attempting to deny people their Constitutional rights.
You mean Obama and his administration are in reality Authoritarians?
You mean Obama and his administration are in reality Authoritarians?
Technically I'd refer to Obama as an unprincipled careerist consumed with trying to please his detractors. I don't actually think he has an ideology that drives his attacks on civil liberties. But what he does do is try to act tough and part of that act is supporting the same "tough on terrorism" policies that Bush did. That the far right wants. Its a totally safe policy because most Americans don't care. Real Libertarians and progressives that care might make up on 20% of voters. But the damage to our civil liberties is the same whether he be an Authoritarian or a triangulating careerist. They both don't have any core principles.
1- Constitution forbids insurrection (although this issue isn't going thru Congress)
2- International law allows for use of lethal force against groups and individuals. Being a US citizen, however, and being targeted by US as a part of fight against Al Qaeda operatives, President approval was asked for, which includes capturing this person dead or alive (not quite an order to assassinate as is the misrepresentation of the issue is suggesting).
Why don't you tell me: What should be done if we can't capture this person alive? This is a question for you too, OZ.
And why must we limit drones to only where they fly today? Who decided their routes? Who decides them now?
You didn't care about the rest of the post. Is it not the person's responsibility to contact the US government/forces and come clean and save the trouble, potentially getting killed?
I modified my post. They were declared that by Congress and Bush's Executive Order that they are used for defense and not assassination.
1- Constitution forbids insurrection (although this issue isn't going thru Congress)
2- International law allows for use of lethal force against groups and individuals. Being a US citizen, however, and being targeted by US as a part of fight against Al Qaeda operatives, President approval was asked for, which includes capturing this person dead or alive (not quite an order to assassinate as is the misrepresentation of the issue is suggesting).
Why don't you tell me: What should be done if we can't capture this person alive?
Isn't a trial needed BEFORE execution?
Or is simply being accused enough nowadays?
Deliberately targeting a particular individual for killing is...assassination.
Also if a drone can find this person,it would seem he could be captured.
I modified my post. They were declared that by Congress and Bush's Executive Order that they are used for defense and not assassination.
1- Define defense.
2- Have they been used for targeted assassinations? Or, is it something that is about to start only now.
3- Link?
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.
