Obama Administration Approves use of Drone to kill US Citizen

[ulu]

We are at war with the Nation of Afganistan. The Taliban are mostly Afgans and we are at war with them, we can't leave and let them gain power again.
.

They have no more or less power now than before the war. They have enough to ensure the fighting never ends, as they did when they fought with russia and nobody won.
The US though has less power now though because financially it's on the verge of being bankrupt.

 

[kiwimac]

Actually no state of war exists between the nation of Afghanistan and the US.

 

[ulu]

Tell that to the families of the dead afghanis who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when the world's only superpower was flexing its military muscle.

 

[Wirraway]

Oh really? ...

its not an ad hominem, you actually don't have any credible debate skills. you won't or can't link to any source that describes the government policy you are complaining about, you just make up a strawman about what you think the policy says to complain about and you freely use ever more preposterous slippery slope claims. that's just bad argumentation.

 

[Wirraway]

Tell that to the families of the dead afghanis who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when the world's only superpower was flexing its military muscle.

the taliban isn't coming back. you need to accept that fact.

 

[ulu]

That's great if the taliban aren't coming back. What does that have to do with any of my posts?

 

[Greatcloud]

the taliban isn't coming back. you need to accept that fact.

If the Taliban come back they will do just what they did previous to the Russians going in there, which is oppress women and subjugate them to many horrors.

 

[kiwimac]

the taliban isn't coming back. you need to accept that fact.

That reply to the concern over the innocent dead does not seem terribly christian to me. Perhaps you might explain?

 

[Billnew]

I thought Biden was taking care of the whole "citizen" part of the equation with that bill to strip citizenship from people believed to be terrorists.

Now they can strip your citizenship and drop a bomb in your lap before you ever know anything is up!

I actually believe citizenship should be removable, but the assasination of any person outside of a warzone should be troubling enough.
I do not believe anyone perosn should be able to strip citizneship, but a court should do it. (As Liberman's(?) bill would allow)

To kill this person or any other person outside a war zone will be an act of war, with the country they reside in.

Obama sure seems to be following-and expanding Bush's ideas, and not concerned with ensuring personal rights. Do we want a goverment, either side rep, dem, ind, that can recend a citizneship and execute a person anywhere in the world, without legal procedings?
Targets in a war zone are one thing, but someone speaking out in a different part of the world?
Until it is proven in a court of law, that this man has done anything more then speak, then we are saying he is a target for death because he is using free speech.
I dislike Islamic radicals, but we must follow procedures so that abuse in the future will not happen, or happen now, if our goverment is wrong about this man.
If one man can be executed by a drone, why not a heated protest in Washington? Simply, collect the bodies and id's and make the list of all the people who's citizenship was removed "just hours before" the massacre.

I believe this power is not good for any party, and not good for the people of the USA, and not good for the world.
(Secretly assasinating someone- part of the dirty underworld, but openly putting the sights on someone?)

 

[Lockguy3000]

What you are saying would be find in a world without
"bad guys".
Being in the security business, sometimes we must
walk on the razors edge between violating personal freedoms,
and securing the safety of the company.

 

[Wirraway]

That reply to the concern over the innocent dead does not seem terribly christian to me. Perhaps you might explain?

I'm not concerned about the innocent dead.

 

[Wirraway]

... Do we want a goverment, either side rep, dem, ind, that can recend a citizneship and execute a person anywhere in the world, without legal procedings?...

no, you want to give the terrorist a certain level of due process. how much process is due is a variable concept. it doesn't have to be and won't be a full blown civil trial with a jury. I know you want these people to go on with their calls to jihad out of some sentimental attachment to your notion of justice, but you're wrong. appoint a prosecuting officer, defense counsel, an impartial tribunal, a few standard procedural rules, try and convict him. then kill him.

you can lose US nationality (a hair broader than citizenship) automatically by doing any of the following, while outside the USA or while here and then leaving and taking up residence abroad. killing someone like that seems like a good idea to me.

Immigration and Nationality Act sec. 349

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4) (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or


(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, United States Code, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, United States Code, or violating section 2384 of said title by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

...

Sec. 356. [8 U.S.C. 1488] The loss of nationality under this chapter shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this chapter.

 

[Greatcloud]

no, you want to give the terrorist a certain level of due process. how much process is due is a variable concept. it doesn't have to be and won't be a full blown civil trial with a jury. I know you want these people to go on with their calls to jihad out of some sentimental attachment to your notion of justice, but you're wrong. appoint a prosecuting officer, defense counsel, an impartial tribunal, a few standard procedural rules, try and convict him. then kill him.

you can lose US nationality (a hair broader than citizenship) automatically by doing any of the following, while outside the USA or while here and then leaving and taking up residence abroad. killing someone like that seems like a good idea to me.

Well said Wirraway I think you covered the bases very well. I would just like to add I believe the Obama adminastration knows what its doing in this case. He did deserve to be executed.

 

[Wirraway]

Well said Wirraway I think you covered the bases very well. I would just like to add I believe the Obama adminastration knows what its doing in this case. He did deserve to be executed.

thanks. I'm not a fan of the president, but there's always a lot more to the story that isn't made public and this is certainly the case here.

 

[Schneiderman]

its not an ad hominem, you actually don't have any credible debate skills.

Says someone who refuses to respond to any arguments or susbtantiate any assertions. yes, it is ad hominem because your entire argument boils down to "you're stupid!".

you won't or can't link to any source that describes the government policy you are complaining about,

You can't tell me what government policy that is. And that's not even relevant. You are just dodging the issue, and demonstrating your own inability to carry on a coherent debate.

you just make up a strawman

You (like most people on the forum, actually) don't know what a strawman is.

about what you think the policy says

What policy? I never mentioned any policy. You brought up the idea of policy but you refuse to specify what you are talking about, as if you think the idea that a policy might deal with this issue absolves anyone of any wrong doing. I guess the holocaust was OK because it was governed by policies. What policies? I don't know, but there were definitely policies so it's fine, case closed.

to complain about and you freely use ever more preposterous slippery slope claims.

You must not know what a slippery slope is either (either that or you don't know American history).

that's just bad argumentation.

And there's another example of irony.

I've got a busy week ahead of me so I'm letting you know right now that if you choose to respond with more ad hominem and continue to refuse to substantiate your claims or specify your assertions I'm not going to bother responding. I enjoy engaging in rational debate, not in responding to masked personal attacks aimed at distracting an imagined audience.

 

[Autumnleaf]

no, you want to give the terrorist a certain level of due process. how much process is due is a variable concept. it doesn't have to be and won't be a full blown civil trial with a jury. I know you want these people to go on with their calls to jihad out of some sentimental attachment to your notion of justice, but you're wrong. appoint a prosecuting officer, defense counsel, an impartial tribunal, a few standard procedural rules, try and convict him. then kill him.

you can lose US nationality (a hair broader than citizenship) automatically by doing any of the following, while outside the USA or while here and then leaving and taking up residence abroad. killing someone like that seems like a good idea to me.

Do you think its okay for the President to okay the killing of US citizens without affording them due process? You have to realize how slippery that slope is and what kind of precedent it makes.

 

[Wirraway]

Says someone who refuses to respond to any arguments or susbtantiate any assertions.pesponding to masked personal attacks aimed at distracting an imagined audience.

I'm not really paying attention to you.

 

[Wirraway]

Do you think its okay for the President to okay the killing of US citizens without affording them due process? You have to realize how slippery that slope is and what kind of precedent it makes.

I'll ask you the same question I keep asking everyone else. how much process is due? do you understand that due process is a variable concept???? do you understand that you can automatically lose your citizenship without any hearing???

you can't throw around terms like "due process" without having at least a basic knowledge of what it is you're talking about.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I'll ask you the same question I keep asking everyone else. how much process is due? do you understand that due process is a variable concept???? do you understand that you can automatically lose your citizenship without any hearing???

you can't throw around terms like "due process" without having at least a basic knowledge of what it is you're talking about.

What stops them from killing you the same way they did this other guy? As long as they say you were a terrorist on the evening news its all good to the average American.

'That could never happen because I'm a law abiding citizen.' How many people on death row were later found to be innocent? How many were framed? How many would be dead if justice were arbitrary instead of due process?

Sooner or later there will probably be Americans who are blonde haired and blue eyed who disagree with what the government does. When that happens do you want police shooting first and asking questions later since they're obviously dealing with terrorists, or do you want then to have due process to follow?

 

[Wirraway]

What stops them from killing you the same way they did this other guy? As long as they say you were a terrorist on the evening news its all good to the average American.

'That could never happen because I'm a law abiding citizen.' How many people on death row were later found to be innocent? How many were framed? How many would be dead if justice were arbitrary instead of due process?

Sooner or later there will probably be Americans who are blonde haired and blue eyed who disagree with what the government does. When that happens do you want police shooting first and asking questions later since they're obviously dealing with terrorists, or do you want then to have due process to follow?

Fallacy: Slippery Slope