What do I have wrong here?

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

What do I have wrong here?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:44 pm

I don't get the Obama administration's policy on the war on terrorism. Maybe someone can help me out here.

1. We can't hold prisoners in Gitmo indefinitely as enemy combatants, unless we try them in a court of law, because that violates international law.

But,

2. We can kill them without arresting them or putting them on trial, even if they are American citizens. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations.

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.
No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist.
Sounds a lot like "wanted dead or....uhhh...no...just dead."

What is the deal with that?

User avatar
cowiz
Shirley
Posts: 16482
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:56 pm
About me: Head up a camels arse
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by cowiz » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:55 pm

One's good a pulling stunts, the others good at stunning cunts. Or something like that.
It's a piece of piss to be cowiz, but it's not cowiz to be a piece of piss. Or something like that.

Martok
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:18 am
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Martok » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:44 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:I don't get the Obama administration's policy on the war on terrorism. Maybe someone can help me out here.

1. We can't hold prisoners in Gitmo indefinitely as enemy combatants, unless we try them in a court of law, because that violates international law.
Most of the people being held at Gitmo were not terrorists. Most of them were handed over to US forces just to get reward money. They had no links to terrorism.
But,

2. We can kill them without arresting them or putting them on trial, even if they are American citizens. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
We know Anwar al-Awlaki it heavily linked to the Fort Hood shooter and the underwear bomber.
Last edited by Martok on Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:45 pm

We've been killing our enemies since 1970. Or so I'm told.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:41 pm

Martok wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I don't get the Obama administration's policy on the war on terrorism. Maybe someone can help me out here.

1. We can't hold prisoners in Gitmo indefinitely as enemy combatants, unless we try them in a court of law, because that violates international law.
Most of the people being held at Gitmo were not terrorists. Most of them were handed over to US forces just to get reward money. They had no links to terrorism.
That's not what the Administration said. And, all we have to go on regarding the American citizen who is up for execution without trial is the word of the Administration, which has claimed the "right" by executive fiat to kill him.
Martok wrote:
But,

2. We can kill them without arresting them or putting them on trial, even if they are American citizens. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
We know Anwar al-Awlaki it heavily linked to the Fort Hood shooter and the underwear bomber.
We do? We know that? How? Because the Administration says so?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:43 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:We've been killing our enemies since 1970. Or so I'm told.
Hmmm.... but, if we capture them as POW's, we have to put them on trial?

So, the rule is: executions without trial by executive fiat is legal, but indefinite detention of POW's is illegal?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:52 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:We've been killing our enemies since 1970. Or so I'm told.
Hmmm.... but, if we capture them as POW's, we have to put them on trial?

So, the rule is: executions without trial by executive fiat is legal, but indefinite detention of POW's is illegal?
No, the rule is kill the fuckers, just in case.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:52 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:We've been killing our enemies since 1970. Or so I'm told.
Hmmm.... but, if we capture them as POW's, we have to put them on trial?

So, the rule is: executions without trial by executive fiat is legal, but indefinite detention of POW's is illegal?
No, the rule is kill the fuckers, just in case.
Very nuanced.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:00 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:We've been killing our enemies since 1970. Or so I'm told.
Hmmm.... but, if we capture them as POW's, we have to put them on trial?

So, the rule is: executions without trial by executive fiat is legal, but indefinite detention of POW's is illegal?
No, the rule is kill the fuckers, just in case.
Very nuanced.
I would rebut with the Barret argument.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:04 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:We've been killing our enemies since 1970. Or so I'm told.
Hmmm.... but, if we capture them as POW's, we have to put them on trial?

So, the rule is: executions without trial by executive fiat is legal, but indefinite detention of POW's is illegal?
No, the rule is kill the fuckers, just in case.
Very nuanced.
I would rebut with the Barret argument.
Which is?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:08 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:I would rebut with the Barret argument.
Which is?
Image
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”


Martok
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:18 am
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Martok » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:06 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Martok wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: 2. We can kill them without arresting them or putting them on trial, even if they are American citizens. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
We know Anwar al-Awlaki it heavily linked to the Fort Hood shooter and the underwear bomber.
We do? We know that? How? Because the Administration says so?
Is Fox news saying otherwise? :what:

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:20 pm

"Shoot the women first. They're the most dangerous."
Coito ergo sum wrote:Image
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: What do I have wrong here?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:43 pm

Martok wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Martok wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: 2. We can kill them without arresting them or putting them on trial, even if they are American citizens. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
We know Anwar al-Awlaki it heavily linked to the Fort Hood shooter and the underwear bomber.
We do? We know that? How? Because the Administration says so?
Is Fox news saying otherwise? :what:
Since when is Fox News the arbiter of when due process has been afforded?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests