ACLU files suit for terrorists [Archive] - Debate Policy

namvet

08-05-2010, 10:05 AM

ACLU sues to represent cleric in Yemen

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in a federal court here, asking a judge to clear the way for a broader challenge to the military's use of "targeted killings" far removed from a battlefield.

"The government is targeting an American citizen for death without any legal process whatsoever, while at the same time impeding lawyers from challenging that death sentence and the government's sweeping claim of authority to issue it," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "We don't think lawyers should have to obtain permission to bring a lawsuit against the government."

story (http://www.fox43.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0804-targeted-killings-20100803,0,4101190.story)

the issue is terrorists are civilians. not military. and the use of drones are to be banned. the ACLU is just after another tasty lawsuit settlement you and i have to pay for. nothing new there. I saw an interview on Fox last night with some dip shit attorney who supports this.

namvet

08-05-2010, 10:46 AM

edit video (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/aclu-now-actively-aiding-al-qaeda)

Kathianne

08-05-2010, 10:51 AM

I don't see why they can't put him on trial for treason, he can show up or not. If not, render verdict in absentia, then pronounce capital punishment.

namvet

08-05-2010, 11:03 AM

he's not the only issue here. if they stop the use of drones that takes away an important weapon from our troops.

Kathianne

08-05-2010, 11:04 AM

he's not the only issue here. if they stop the use of drones that takes away an important weapon from our troops.

My reading was that the case was about ordering the possible killing of US citizen deemed a terrorist, without due process.

namvet

08-05-2010, 11:21 AM

My reading was that the case was about ordering the possible killing of US citizen deemed a terrorist, without due process.

not just them. they want to eliminate the use of drones on all terrorists because they are considered civilians. worldwide. especially in Iraq and afghan. so the terrorists that are killing our troops are entitled to due process first.
....ill see if i can find that vid i saw last night.

Kathianne

08-05-2010, 11:24 AM

not just them. they want to eliminate the use of drones on all terrorists because they are considered civilians. worldwide. especially in Iraq and afghan. so the terrorists that are killing our troops are entitled to due process first.
....ill see if i can find that vid i saw last night.

I was dealing with your op link:

..."The government is targeting an American citizen for death without any legal process whatsoever, while at the same time impeding lawyers from challenging that death sentence and the government's sweeping claim of authority to issue it," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "We don't think lawyers should have to obtain permission to bring a lawsuit against the government."

The Obama administration has increasingly used aerial drones to attack and kill al Qaeda leaders, not just in the war zones of Afghanistan and its border with Pakistan, but in Yemen and elsewhere. In April, the administration put Awlaki on its target list. He is an American born Muslim cleric who lives in Yemen and has reportedly encouraged a series of attacks on the United States, including the failed Christmas Day bombing of an airplane arriving in Detroit. He was also in contact with Nidal Hassan, the alleged killer of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009.

Lawyers for the ACLU and CCR question the constitutionality of the U.S. government's policy of targeted killings outside "the theater of war."

"We don't think it is wise or legal to regard the entire planet as the battlefield," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer. The constitutional claim relies on the 5th Amendment which says "no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

...

namvet

08-05-2010, 11:26 AM

I was dealing with your op link:

but their attorney had a diff story. he wants a worldwide ban

Kathianne

08-05-2010, 11:28 AM

not just them. they want to eliminate the use of drones on all terrorists because they are considered civilians. worldwide. especially in Iraq and afghan. so the terrorists that are killing our troops are entitled to due process first.
....ill see if i can find that vid i saw last night.

See what you can find, but better in print for me because of hearing, than video.

namvet

08-05-2010, 11:32 AM

See what you can find, but better in print for me because of hearing, than video.

that might be a tuffie. its really in the vid i added

Kathianne

08-05-2010, 11:42 AM

that might be a tuffie. its really in the vid i added

The only video I saw was O'Reilly's talking points memo about ACLU. Nothing about this guy's lawyer.

Seems to me that going in absentia or better yet, Republican legislators taking back Congress's responsibility to declare war.

I agree that this guy is a terrorist, also a traitor.

namvet

08-05-2010, 11:46 AM

The only video I saw was O'Reilly's talking points memo about ACLU. Nothing about this guy's lawyer.

Seems to me that going in absentia or better yet, Republican legislators taking back Congress's responsibility to declare war.

I agree that this guy is a terrorist, also a traitor.

so you could hear it ok??? you can buy a set of headphones and plug into the PC audio jack.

namvet

08-05-2010, 11:49 AM

my opinion

They aren't civilians. They are ilegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention and thus valid military targets.

Libs can whine and bitch all they like but it was Obama who has accepted the Presidential finding and decisions after to put these idiots on the target blotter.

Kathianne

08-05-2010, 11:50 AM

so you could hear it ok??? you can buy a set of headphones and plug into the PC audio jack.

I'm very good at having the tech tools, but not so good at listening without exhaustive effort. Thus the reason I prefer print.

However, that video doesn't say different than the news article, just O'Reilly's spin on it.

revelarts

08-05-2010, 01:01 PM

Gaffer

08-05-2010, 03:50 PM

They are targeting a terrorist who happens to be an American. He's there with a bunch of other terrorists and if they are spotted the drone will take them out. Anyone who is against that is a terrorist enabler. They are not truly terrorists anyway. They are soldiers of islam. Their uniforms are what the local population wear so they can blend in. Like camouflage. Any shit eating lawyer who stands up for these scumbags needs to be disbarred and imprisoned for life.

revelarts

08-06-2010, 11:28 PM

ask not for whom the drone tolls...

DragonStryk72

08-07-2010, 12:02 AM

They are targeting a terrorist who happens to be an American. He's there with a bunch of other terrorists and if they are spotted the drone will take them out. Anyone who is against that is a terrorist enabler. They are not truly terrorists anyway. They are soldiers of islam. Their uniforms are what the local population wear so they can blend in. Like camouflage. Any shit eating lawyer who stands up for these scumbags needs to be disbarred and imprisoned for life.

Oh really, Gaffer? So that whole thing that "No person shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without due process" was horseshit?

No, I'm sick of the bullshit cowardly antics of our government. We've become a nation of dishonorable cowards, afraid to hold to our own ideals because a bunch of other dishonorable cowards half a world away, numbering less than .01% of our population, want to hurt us. We don't need these tactics to win, Gaff, unless you are the belief that we really are that weak that we need the crutch of assassinations and the destruction of our core values? And if we do, then haven't we already lost? They hate us because of the values we hold, so in abandoning, we are giving them exactly looking for.

LuvRPgrl

08-14-2010, 04:42 PM

They are targeting a terrorist who happens to be an American. He's there with a bunch of other terrorists and if they are spotted the drone will take them out. Anyone who is against that is a terrorist enabler. They are not truly terrorists anyway. They are soldiers of islam. Their uniforms are what the local population wear so they can blend in. Like camouflage. Any shit eating lawyer who stands up for these scumbags needs to be disbarred and imprisoned for life.

Apparently that guy doesnt understand that the definition, when dealing with terrorists, of "war zone" is not what it used to be. The terrorists have chosen to bring it to civilian targets and civilian locations, so those now are included in the war zone.

I have stood over a blood stain of a 13 year old boy murdered by a suicide bomber in the Philippines. It was in a market area, not military by any means. It is now part of the war zone.

Gaffer

08-14-2010, 06:44 PM

Apparently that guy doesnt understand that the definition, when dealing with terrorists, of "war zone" is not what it used to be. The terrorists have chosen to bring it to civilian targets and civilian locations, so those now are included in the war zone.

I have stood over a blood stain of a 13 year old boy murdered by a suicide bomber in the Philippines. It was in a market area, not military by any means. It is now part of the war zone.

This sort of stuff actually started in Vietnam. They used the civilians as shields to hide behind in villages and cities. And they recruited by terrorizing the people and executing anyone that refuse to go along with them.

revelarts

08-14-2010, 07:44 PM

Apparently that guy doesnt understand that the definition, when dealing with terrorists, of "war zone" is not what it used to be. The terrorists have chosen to bring it to civilian targets and civilian locations, so those now are included in the war zone.

I have stood over a blood stain of a 13 year old boy murdered by a suicide bomber in the Philippines. It was in a market area, not military by any means. It is now part of the war zone.

I hear the righteous frustration in your post LPG.
My problem is not getting the terrorist my problem is Who the U.S. Considers terrorist to kill.

is it some one who's actually carried out a terrorist attack. that we know of without a shadow of a doubt did the deed. Is it someone who just gave a suicide bomber a ride to the airport as well as navy guys the other day. Is it a knowingly complicit financier in Dubai, Saudi Arabia or Egypt that never meets the bomber or shooter but prays for them every day? is it some one who is PLANNING but hasn't done anything. is it some one who TALKS about MAYBE ONE DAY killing some infidel Americans or Israels.

In my book the only person that's worthy of death is the guy known of without a shadow of a doubt as a killer. and even that only if there's no way to pick him for a trial. I really don't elevate terrorist to soldier status in my book they a low life serial killers. Not international supervillians. Just twisted cult serial killers. We catch serial killers, put them on trail and put them in jail. Cowboy justice and hangins to good for them, are understandable sentiments but that not who we want to be, it's not who we claim to be. It's not who we need to be to deal with the problem IMO.

And DragonS makes some points that Graffers answered before - Gaffer you say you don't like the constitution that much- soo you don't really care if the gov't puts you on the list of terrorist marked for death. I'm not sure why you think that the people in gov't have your particular definition of terrorist in mind when they say it's OK to kill an American on sight. Check the terrorist watch list thread again. Over a million people on the list. Some American soldiers.

Terrorist Threats
Terrorist Suspects
Terrorist Supporters
Terrorist who have done the deed
and the Gov't decides who's who but they can't tell you.

And everyone's OK with that?

Gaffer

08-14-2010, 08:13 PM

I hear the righteous frustration in your post LPG.
My problem is not getting the terrorist my problem is Who the U.S. Considers terrorist to kill.

is it some one who's actually carried out a terrorist attack. that we know of without a shadow of a doubt did the deed. Is it someone who just gave a suicide bomber a ride to the airport as well as navy guys the other day. Is it a knowingly complicit financier in Dubai, Saudi Arabia or Egypt that never meets the bomber or shooter but prays for them every day? is it some one who is PLANNING but hasn't done anything. is it some one who TALKS about MAYBE ONE DAY killing some infidel Americans or Israels.

In my book the only person that's worthy of death is the guy known of without a shadow of a doubt as a killer. and even that only if there's no way to pick him for a trial. I really don't elevate terrorist to soldier status in my book they a low life serial killers. Not international supervillians. Just twisted cult serial killers. We catch serial killers, put them on trail and put them in jail. Cowboy justice and hangins to good for them, are understandable sentiments but that not who we want to be, it's not who we claim to be. It's not who we need to be to deal with the problem IMO.

And DragonS makes some points that Graffers answered before - Gaffer you say you don't like the constitution that much- soo you don't really care if the gov't puts you on the list of terrorist marked for death. I'm not sure why you think that the people in gov't have your particular definition of terrorist in mind when they say it's OK to kill an American on sight. Check the terrorist watch list thread again. Over a million people on the list. Some American soldiers.

Terrorist Threats
Terrorist Suspects
Terrorist Supporters
Terrorist who have done the deed
and the Gov't decides who's who but they can't tell you.

And everyone's OK with that?

Enablers are anyone that knowingly helps, aids, finances or supports terrorists. And I have no problem with making them dead. I have no problem with going after the ones that are just planning something. I don't believe in waiting until he kills someone to take him out.

There is a huge terror list kept by the government because the government is incompetent.

LuvRPgrl

08-14-2010, 11:11 PM

I hear the righteous frustration in your post LPG.
My problem is not getting the terrorist my problem is Who the U.S. Considers terrorist to kill.

is it some one who's actually carried out a terrorist attack. that we know of without a shadow of a doubt did the deed. Is it someone who just gave a suicide bomber a ride to the airport as well as navy guys the other day. Is it a knowingly complicit financier in Dubai, Saudi Arabia or Egypt that never meets the bomber or shooter but prays for them every day? is it some one who is PLANNING but hasn't done anything. is it some one who TALKS about MAYBE ONE DAY killing some infidel Americans or Israels.

In my book the only person that's worthy of death is the guy known of without a shadow of a doubt as a killer. and even that only if there's no way to pick him for a trial. I really don't elevate terrorist to soldier status in my book they a low life serial killers. Not international supervillians. Just twisted cult serial killers. We catch serial killers, put them on trail and put them in jail. Cowboy justice and hangins to good for them, are understandable sentiments but that not who we want to be, it's not who we claim to be. It's not who we need to be to deal with the problem IMO.

And DragonS makes some points that Graffers answered before - Gaffer you say you don't like the constitution that much- soo you don't really care if the gov't puts you on the list of terrorist marked for death. I'm not sure why you think that the people in gov't have your particular definition of terrorist in mind when they say it's OK to kill an American on sight. Check the terrorist watch list thread again. Over a million people on the list. Some American soldiers.

Terrorist Threats
Terrorist Suspects
Terrorist Supporters
Terrorist who have done the deed
and the Gov't decides who's who but they can't tell you.

And everyone's OK with that?

I dont know your age, but when the idealism of youth hits the reality of adulthood, one , if wise, finds a middle ground

Things are not black and white anymore

If you are an American, you simply put your life at great peril if you live in those parts. I dont visit Mindanao in the Philippines.
And if your muslim, you dont associate in any way shape or form with terrorists, unless you support them

My question to you is this. Would you rather err on the side of occasionally killing a maybe half way innocent person, or err on the side of maybe letting a real terrorist live, and that terrorist just might be the one who pulls of a bombing.
How do you think you would feel if your wife and 2 year old daughter were in a high rise on fire from a plane crashed into it and rather than the torturous death of fire, your wife tosses your daughter out the window to her death, and then jumps herself.

CLUE: It would haunt you the rest of your life.
WHich is the reason I didnt watch the video when the sub human terrorists
cut that guys head off. I didnt want to give them the victory of that forever being seared into my memory. I know a lot of people regret having watched it.
Oh, and for the record, I support ;the death penalty.
Two convicts recently escaped, and killed some innocent people. If they had been executed, those people would still be alive
A society determines the worth of things it values as demonstrated by the severity of the penalty it imposes for destoying those things. If they dont protect life with the death penalty, then they dont have enough regard for human life in the first place.

revelarts

08-15-2010, 03:33 AM

I have know idea how the pain of having someone close to me killed by any murderer might effect me. i hope I'd still want to do what's right and effective. But i might become a murder as well, and kill some innocent person in the family of the person i thought was the murderer as revenge, I don't know, but i hope not.

I'll be turning the corner at 50 in a few short years LRPG. And I'm not as idealistic As I use to be. I've mentioned before I used to trust the gov't a lot more and republican politicians to a great degree. No more. But my answer is not to compromise the principals that i believe really make the country great. It's possible to bring people to justice without a shoot 1st ask questions later mind set. there are many terrorist in jail today. Mousoui is in jail today, Charles Manson is in jail today. We can get the worse of the worse bad guys I believe but i don't believe there are as many to get as some. But there is no such thing as perfectly safe. if a terrorist want to do some damage sadly there's probably away to get it done.

You mention there are places in the Philippines that people don't go. there are places like that all over the world and sadly in the U.S..

The same gov't we say we don't want to take over health care we trust with a blank check to shoot anyone in the world at anytime for our health and safety.

I believe in the death penalty too but like you i'm not such an idealist , and looking at the reality of it I say we probably shouldn't use it since we can't seem to administer it fairly right now. many more minorities get the penalty for the same crimes as whites. that just the facts. And it''s not equal justice. So i'd ere on the side of justice. life in prison is fine.

I'd like to get the real terrorist but LRPG have you dug into who the terrorist are and what the gov't is doing, there are several holes in the investigation. and I'm not talking 9-11 inside job right now.
did you know that the Ben Laden family was flow out of the U.S. while all ofthe other flights were grounded. and they were never question. That a Pakistani general Wire money to Mohamed Atta days before the attack. That Mohamed Atta drank, smoked, did drugs, gambled and had a white Stripper/hairdresser girlfriend in Florida. Not sure what kind of Muslim he was? Did you know that he was associated with a German guy and Atta's email list appear to have employees of U.S. Defense contractors. That tthe flight school Atta lived near and was assoatied with in FL is known for drug smuggling. That several of the hijackers trained at U.S. Airforce bases. That several smoking gun money trails investigations that lead to Saudis, Turks and if I remember Egyptians have been squelched for "diplomatic" reason. As high our passion is justice or revenge or protection many in our gov't are not really in this with the same clear motive you have. Why exactly did Bin Laden get away at Bora Bora? Will we every know the truth there? I don't trust our gov't motives for having the unrestrained authority and public sanction to shoot ANYONE any where in the world. Especially in the light of many of their shoddy, suspicious and immoral efforts over the past 10 years.

LuvRPgrl

08-15-2010, 12:42 PM

I have know idea how the pain of having someone close to me killed by any murderer might effect me. i hope I'd still want to do what's right and effective. But i might become a murder as well, and kill some innocent person in the family of the person i thought was the murderer as revenge, I don't know, but i hope not..

Well,I wouldnt, unless I knew for a fact that they either helped, or knew what he was going to do and did nothing to stop him.

The same gov't we say we don't want to take over health care we trust with a blank check to shoot anyone in the world at anytime for our health and safety..

The difference is that protecting us from terrorists IS WHAT THE GOVT IS SUPPOSE TO DO. Others can administer health care, nobody else can put an army together and kill terrorists.;

you say you dont trust the govt. The larger the govt is, the easier it is for them to get away with stuff.

.I believe in the death penalty too but like you i'm not such an idealist , and looking at the reality of it I say we probably shouldn't use it since we can't seem to administer it fairly right now. many more minorities get the penalty for the same crimes as whites. that just the facts. And it''s not equal justice. So i'd ere on the side of justice. life in prison is fine..

Many more minorities commit crimes. As long as those who get the death penalty did the crime, I dont care if others happen to not get the death penalty. Fairness is a joke, a myth.
But just because one guy beats the death penalty, isnt a reason to let all the others off in the name of fairness.

Also, you probably dont realize how many convictions thru confessions we get because of the threat of the death penalty

I'd like to get the real terrorist but LRPG have you dug into who the terrorist are and what the gov't is doing, there are several holes in the investigation. and I'm not talking 9-11 inside job right now..

Did you just do what I thought you did? Say you arent going to talk about 9-11 inside job and then go right on to do it?

That Mohamed Atta drank, smoked, did drugs, gambled and had a white Stripper/hairdresser girlfriend in Florida. Not sure what kind of Muslim he was? Did you know that he was associated with a German guy and Atta's email list appear to have employees of U.S. Defense contractors..

So apparently there are US Citizens commiting treason and are deserving of the death by drone syndrome.