[QUOTE=Bricker]
That may not be relevant for the discussion, but it pisses me off.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not really relevant to the discussion, but you’ve made your point so why not let it go at this point and focus on THIS discussion?
Serious question - is it possible they were tried in absentia? I imagine it would be a little hard to send them an email saying “Pretty please come to America. We find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of wishing to put you on trial and your cooperation is greatly appreciated.”
…
I’d support something like that. But I think the amount of rights being eaten away gets overstated in debates like this. If a WWI-era U.S. infantryman had run out of his trench, gotten in a Central Powers trench and started shooting at the Allies, nobody would have argued that the U.S. military needed some kind of extra permission to kill him. There are some obvious ways in which that example differs from what’s going on with people like al-Awlaki and I don’t mean to ignore those, but the similarities shouldn’t be ignored either. If a careful review of the evidence says someone is involved in a conspiracy to kill Americans and the president has authorization to do take action against those people, they don’t get extra rights because they’re the same nationality as the people they’re trying to kill.
I’m as worried about that today as I was yesterday.
[QUOTE=RitterSport]
Sorry, but they were specifically targeting an American. They didn’t get him by accident.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, maybe you can fight my ignorance on this, but do you have a cite that he was the target? I’m assuming we are talking about the son here, not the father. If we are talking about the father, then that brings up some other issues.
The drone strike wasn’t specifically targeting Americans…it was specifically targeting terrorists who just happened to be Americans. I’m unsure how you and others are rationalizing all of this to be honest. Are you opposed to all drone strikes and are picking this as a technicality (I can sort of see this rational), or are you really saying that drone strikes are ok, unless Americans happen to be involved, in which case they are bad and instead we should…what? Send in the police to arrest these bad Americans and bring them back to the US for trial?? :dubious:
I’m sorry, but this is complete horseshit and it’s also not the type of ‘guts’ that I was talking about. Sending in drones isn’t ‘the cowards way out’…it’s the smart thing to do and actually causes less harm. Assuming you are going to fight at all, it’s going to cause the least harm, not only to your own people but to the folks around the targets.
The ‘guts’ are that Obama is willing to take the political flack (pretty much endless flack on this subject) from purportedly his own side on this because he knows it’s the right thing to do…really the only option he has if he wants to go after the people who are causing all this ruckus and are hiding out in remote places or in other countries. The fact that some of the people (like 3 I think) have been Americans is pretty much immaterial. They have joined the ranks of the enemy we are fighting over there, so they made their choice. There is no slippery slope here…you aren’t going to see drone strikes in Montana or New York.
That is a fascinating statement, and highly relevant to a discussion of permissible actions under an Authorization for Use of Military Force that says, “…That RitterSport is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized…”
This is pretty much exactly how I feel (lifelong Democrat here). Would like more oversight in the process (even if it’s in secret), but also don’t think an American has special rights if he’s engaging in terrorist acts in another country.
In addition to his many jihad videos, he was in contact with a couple of the September 11th hijackers before that attack and corresponded with Nidal Hassan before he shot up Fort Hood. What bad luck this guy had to keep accidentally running into people who would go on to commit terrorist attacks. If we knew the specifics I don’t think it would be too difficult to make the case that this falls under the criteria you quoted.
I’m not sure that putting it that way counters what RitterSport is saying.
Enough words for you?
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/429100_227178417417064_625468781_n.jpg
No…could you elaborate?
I didn’t say anything about a number of words. I said Bricker and **XT ** and Lord Felton were posting more content, meaning they were doing better than you are in terms of quality, not quantity. So while I regret the deaths of children, no, your jpeg doesn’t change that.
At least 39 children have died as a result of the war effort.
And?
I’m saying that congress put limits on the president’s authority, and it seems obvious that Al-Alwaki (sp?) falls outside the limits in the text you quoted. The wiki article on him says that Bin Laden didn’t even like the guy.
XT, I’m talking about the father. I think drone strikes may have their place but are drastically overused by this administration.
And, with that, I sign off for the night and pay attention to my family. If this thread isn’t 10 pages long by tomorrow, I’ll try to get back to it.
We all know terrorists take great care to avoid killing children. Only eight died on the flights they smashed into the World Trade Center, and while there was a day care center in the WTC, it was on the ground floor and none of those children were killed. Obviously they never would have attacked the building if they hadn’t known for a fact that all the children would get out safely.
This is the ultimate in “so what.” Bin Laden didn’t like Ayman al-Zawahiri either, but he was still his top deputy. I don’t think he thought much of al-Zarqawi, for that matter. They are/were still indisputably members of Al Qaeda, and al-Awlaki had some fairly obvious involvement with AQ as well. That means the authorization includes him.
Marley23, sorry, I didn’t see your post about his activities before I replied. That changes the analysis under that law. I still hate the open-ended nature of that law, the Patriot act, and how this and the previous administrations have been acting in this regard, but I concede it’s probably technically legal.
The point being that the AUMF gives the President’s determinations legal force, and no force whatsoever to RitterSport’s determinations. So for RitterSport to conclude that Anwar al-Aulaqi does not fit the criteria is pretty useless.
Wait… so your deep and trenchant analysis of the issue, in which you conclude that the President’s determination was wrong because it was “obvious,” was based on some level of examination of the facts that didn’t include his contact with the September 11th hijackers before that attack?
Even more useless now that it’s clear your conclusion was based on clues derived from reading the backs of old boxes of Frosted Lucky Charms.
This is the sort of bullshit that pro-drone thinking leads to. “Terrorism is bad! Disagree with Obama and you’re a terrorist! I’m going to respond to every problem with America by talking about how bad terrorism is, as if that is relevant!”
I’m pretty sure RitterSport knows that. But if RitterSport has questions about the reliability of those determinations, a simply assertion of authority is not reassuring.
It seemed pretty well on point to me since your post was really just an appeal to emotion, but I’m sure you’ll provide a solid rationale now.
My argument is that murdering children is bad, giving unlimited power to the President as long as he says the magic word “terrorism” is bad, and that your support of this makes you morally bankrupt. Your argument is a recycled Rudy Giuliani talking point where your answer to anything is NINELEVENINELEVENINELEVEN.