Obama justifies assassination of US Citizens?

[cronus]

The other factor in this is probably a realisation that when a Repub president next gets in, they won't wind back any of this and will in fact extend it as Obama himself did.

Neither fact nor realization; just a false belief. Let's not forget Romney was the candidate who said "you can't kill your way to peace".

What any politician says to win office is no indicator of what'll happen once they've got those grubby hands on the levers of power, though.

[pErvinalia]

The other factor in this is probably a realisation that when a Repub president next gets in, they won't wind back any of this and will in fact extend it as Obama himself did.

Neither fact nor realization; just a false belief. Let's not forget Romney was the candidate who said "you can't kill your way to peace".

It's all rhetoric Warren. History shows that opposition parties more often than not don't wind back previous government initiatives. Particularly if they are initiatives they agree on. The republican party has far more neo-cons than the democrats. To think they would wind this back is naive.

[Seth]

According to news reports, the more detailed information coming to Congress says pretty much what I said in a dense legal argument that's classified. The gist is, however, that outside the US, a citizen who levies war against the US loses the protection of the Constitution afforded to loyal citizens. This goes back at least as far as WWII, and probably earlier. Obviously, if there is a US citizen who has taken up arms of a foreign nation against the US, we're not going to hesitate to kill them under the laws of war just because they claim citizenship.

And I have to completely agree with this rationale. Protection from the Constitution requires loyalty to the Constitution to at least some minimal degree, such as not waging war or committing terrorist acts against the US..

You should.

"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court" - U.S. constitution, Article III, section 3.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witneses against him" - U.S. constitution, Amendment 6

That only applies within the boundaries of the United States and only to criminal prosecutions. We don't convict enemy combatants of anything, we just kill them. If you're an enemy combatant, it doesn't matter one little bit what your citizenship is, we have every legal right and justification to kill you on sight. That's rather the point.

It's idiocy to suggest that a nation can prosecute a war by "arresting" and trying every enemy combatant found in the field.

War is war, and in war you kill your enemies, you don't inquire as to their citizenship. If they don't want to be summarily killed, they should retire from the field and eschew combatant status.

[Seth]

The other factor in this is probably a realisation that when a Repub president next gets in, they won't wind back any of this and will in fact extend it as Obama himself did.

Neither fact nor realization; just a false belief. Let's not forget Romney was the candidate who said "you can't kill your way to peace".

Sure you can, if you have the will and ability to do so. It does require, however, that you utterly exterminate or enslave your enemy and all his people, which is usually beyond the pale of most civilized societies...excluding Islam.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

We don't convict enemy combatants of anything, we just kill them. If you're an enemy combatant, it doesn't matter one little bit what your citizenship is, we have every legal right and justification to kill you on sight.

Agreed, but with some important caveats.

* you don't shoot them if they are in the process of surrendering, or if they are prisoners of war

* you have to be sure they are in fact enemy combatants. In the murky wars of today, with insurgents blending into the civilian population, this is not always an easy process

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

We don't convict enemy combatants of anything, we just kill them. If you're an enemy combatant, it doesn't matter one little bit what your citizenship is, we have every legal right and justification to kill you on sight.

Agreed, but with some important caveats.

* you don't shoot them if they are in the process of surrendering, or if they are prisoners of war

* you have to be sure they are in fact enemy combatants. In the murky wars of today, with insurgents blending into the civilian population, this is not always an easy process

True enough to both points.

[Warren Dew]

The other factor in this is probably a realisation that when a Repub president next gets in, they won't wind back any of this and will in fact extend it as Obama himself did.

Neither fact nor realization; just a false belief. Let's not forget Romney was the candidate who said "you can't kill your way to peace".

It's all rhetoric Warren. History shows that opposition parties more often than not don't wind back previous government initiatives. Particularly if they are initiatives they agree on. The republican party has far more neo-cons than the democrats. To think they would wind this back is naive.

My comment was about Romney, not about the Republican party in general - though the libertarian arm of the party is certainly trying to wean the Republicans off the recent bipartisan addiction to war.

According to news reports, the more detailed information coming to Congress says pretty much what I said in a dense legal argument that's classified. The gist is, however, that outside the US, a citizen who levies war against the US loses the protection of the Constitution afforded to loyal citizens. This goes back at least as far as WWII, and probably earlier. Obviously, if there is a US citizen who has taken up arms of a foreign nation against the US, we're not going to hesitate to kill them under the laws of war just because they claim citizenship.

And I have to completely agree with this rationale. Protection from the Constitution requires loyalty to the Constitution to at least some minimal degree, such as not waging war or committing terrorist acts against the US..

You should.

"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court" - U.S. constitution, Article III, section 3.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witneses against him" - U.S. constitution, Amendment 6

That only applies within the boundaries of the United States and only to criminal prosecutions. We don't convict enemy combatants of anything, we just kill them. If you're an enemy combatant, it doesn't matter one little bit what your citizenship is, we have every legal right and justification to kill you on sight. That's rather the point.

It's idiocy to suggest that a nation can prosecute a war by "arresting" and trying every enemy combatant found in the field.

War is war, and in war you kill your enemies, you don't inquire as to their citizenship. If they don't want to be summarily killed, they should retire from the field and eschew combatant status.

Your arguments would make sense if we were at war with Yemen. We aren't.

[pErvinalia]

The other factor in this is probably a realisation that when a Repub president next gets in, they won't wind back any of this and will in fact extend it as Obama himself did.

Neither fact nor realization; just a false belief. Let's not forget Romney was the candidate who said "you can't kill your way to peace".

It's all rhetoric Warren. History shows that opposition parties more often than not don't wind back previous government initiatives. Particularly if they are initiatives they agree on. The republican party has far more neo-cons than the democrats. To think they would wind this back is naive.

My comment was about Romney, not about the Republican party in general - though the libertarian arm of the party is certainly trying to wean the Republicans off the recent bipartisan addiction to war.

Doesn't matter if it was Romney or anyone else. It's all empty rhetoric until we see the opposite. And history shows that we rarely see the opposite.

[cronus]

Truth is the first casualty of war though Seth.

[Clinton Huxley]

Truth is the first casualty of war though Seth.

I thought the French were the first casualty of war?

[cronus]

Truth is the first casualty of war though Seth.

I thought the French were the first casualty of war?

'War' means 'run away' in French, doesn''t it?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, more Americans have been killed by guns on American soil since 1960 than have been killed in all wars the US has ever been in.

More Americans have been killed and car crashes and died of the flu, too.

[Coito ergo sum]

The other factor in this is probably a realisation that when a Repub president next gets in, they won't wind back any of this and will in fact extend it as Obama himself did.

Neither fact nor realization; just a false belief. Let's not forget Romney was the candidate who said "you can't kill your way to peace".

It's all rhetoric Warren. History shows that opposition parties more often than not don't wind back previous government initiatives. Particularly if they are initiatives they agree on. The republican party has far more neo-cons than the democrats. To think they would wind this back is naive.

Well, then I guess it wasn't "Change" we could believe in, was it? LOL --

And, I guess you folks really don't oppose the idea of a global war on terrorism where guys like Awlaki are considered soldiers on a battlefield that can be killed like soldiers on any battlefield, and they're not entitled to indictment or trial.

[Seth]

Your arguments would make sense if we were at war with Yemen. We aren't.

We haven't attacked Yemen. We've attacked our enemies who have declared war on the United States IN Yemen. The justification for that is the same as the justification for killing Germans in North Africa during WWII. It doesn't matter where one's enemies are, when a nation is at war it reserves the right to kill those enemies wherever they may be found. This is particularly true of terrorists, who have no nation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Only cops should have guns: