obama, easy to kill this 16 year old boy -drone strike.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.
How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

obama , the dictator can not be questioned by Congress. At least not while he holds office..
Vote him out , then bring charges for his many treasonous actions. For he has many to choose from..
Read the entire linked article....
He execute a 16 year old boy and said it was easy decision yet he had to have his arm twisted to give the greenlight on executing Osama! Think about that and what kind of scum this traitor is!! -Tyr

[Gaffer]

The 16 year old was not the target. The uncle he was traveling with was the target. The others with them were all al qaeda. No sympathy here. ZERO has a lot to answer for but this is not something I'm concerned about.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The 16 year old was not the target. The uncle he was traveling with was the target. The others with them were all al qaeda. No sympathy here. ZERO has a lot to answer for but this is not something I'm concerned about.

I have no sympathy for terrorists and yet obama's statement that it was an easy decision to kill the 16 year old American boy while he agonised over killing Osama and only gave the greenlight to do so after having his arm twisted for hours by several advisers was the point I was attempting to make.
True , Zero has a damn lot to answer for and his supporters that so criticised Bush for collateral damage in strikes made on terrorists /enemy need to have this shoved in their damn hypocritical faces. For their silence and support of obama clearly reveals that they are hypcrits of the highest order.
obama gave no hesitation to killing this American boy yet hesitated and had to be pushed to kill scum like murdering enemy scum like Osama, that needs to be better known about what obama truly is!-Tyr

[fj1200]

Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

We had quite the thread on that, the father's death, awhile back. As I recall the administration laid out its justification in a 50? page legal brief... as yet unreleased. Death by legal brief is not justification IMO.

[jimnyc]

We had quite the thread on that, the father's death, awhile back. As I recall the administration laid out its justification in a 50? page legal brief... as yet unreleased. Death by legal brief is not justification IMO.

True as that may be... The justification was targeting a known terrorist leader. We don't normally consider unfortunate collateral damage a crime during war, and we shouldn't this time. Regardless of where one may come from, if they become leader of a known and large terrorist group, they don't remain under US protection and laws. Otherwise, any US person wishing to be a terrorist could go abroad and claim they can't be touched or targeted. I think it would be dumb to allow free roaming of a terrorist leader simply because of where he hails from. The son was killed because he chose to follow, find and hang out with known terrorists. I just can't imagine either be allowed free passage wherever they go because of where they are from. If you tie the hands of our Military and other agencies, say they can't kill these people without due process, then what happens of that truck arrives elsewhere and they commit an attack that kills 300 people? They chose their route, and our military and government chose theirs. He knew he was a wanted man and continued his terror ways anyway.

[fj1200]

True as that may be... The justification was targeting a known terrorist leader. We don't normally consider unfortunate collateral damage a crime during war, and we shouldn't this time. Regardless of where one may come from, if they become leader of a known and large terrorist group, they don't remain under US protection and laws. Otherwise, any US person wishing to be a terrorist could go abroad and claim they can't be touched or targeted. I think it would be dumb to allow free roaming of a terrorist leader simply because of where he hails from. The son was killed because he chose to follow, find and hang out with known terrorists. I just can't imagine either be allowed free passage wherever they go because of where they are from. If you tie the hands of our Military and other agencies, say they can't kill these people without due process, then what happens of that truck arrives elsewhere and they commit an attack that kills 300 people? They chose their route, and our military and government chose theirs. He knew he was a wanted man and continued his terror ways anyway.

Nobody is suggesting that he be free roaming or untouchable but as a citizen he is deserving of a higher level of due process. Being that it's also unlikely that a US born terrorist overseas isn't going to just come back for his day in court and will possibly be very likely hard to bring in without jeopardizing other US lives, a middle ground should be found. Congress has a role in creating other options and SCOTUS has a role in oversight of those other options but the main point is that the Executive branch should not, and doesn't Constitutionally IMO, have the power unchecked to target anyone.

[jimnyc]

Nobody is suggesting that he be free roaming or untouchable but as a citizen he is deserving of a higher level of due process. Being that it's also unlikely that a US born terrorist overseas isn't going to just come back for his day in court and will possibly be very likely hard to bring in without jeopardizing other US lives, a middle ground should be found. Congress has a role in creating other options and SCOTUS has a role in oversight of those other options but the main point is that the Executive branch should not, and doesn't Constitutionally IMO, have the power unchecked to target anyone.

Being a terrorist leader, meaning he or any of his cronies could be involved in planning or executing mass devastation or at the very minimum, single murders, what level of due process do you think they are deserving of? Being that they are in fact roaming free in foreign lands, planning and perhaps executing attacks, I can possibly imagine any ending other than targeting them for elimination. The closest 2nd would be capturing them, which isn't very reasonable in foreign land, when the lives of individuals or masses could lie in the balance. I would agree that SCOTUS or Congress should simply make changes to reflect the legality of an American turned proven terrorist, making them fair targets, as anything less is letting them roam free while lives are at stake.

[red states rule]

The 16 year old was not the target. The uncle he was traveling with was the target. The others with them were all al qaeda. No sympathy here. ZERO has a lot to answer for but this is not something I'm concerned about.

We agree on this Gaffer. If we were worried about killing non combatants, would the US have bombed Germany and Japan in WWII?

We do what we have to do to kill our enemies

[fj1200]

Being a terrorist leader, meaning he or any of his cronies could be involved in planning or executing mass devastation or at the very minimum, single murders, what level of due process do you think they are deserving of? Being that they are in fact roaming free in foreign lands, planning and perhaps executing attacks, I can possibly imagine any ending other than targeting them for elimination. The closest 2nd would be capturing them, which isn't very reasonable in foreign land, when the lives of individuals or masses could lie in the balance. I would agree that SCOTUS or Congress should simply make changes to reflect the legality of an American turned proven terrorist, making them fair targets, as anything less is letting them roam free while lives are at stake.

Certainly more than a brief and a process that is created by Congress "establishing tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." I also think you take reasonable a bit too far as we may not have access to deal with them at all and if we do it's going to be subject to what the country in question would allow. I don't like the idea of any administration having the license to do as they please that's why any action taken should be subject to checks and balances.

[red states rule]

Certainly more than a brief and a process that is created by Congress "establishing tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." I also think you take reasonable a bit too far as we may not have access to deal with them at all and if we do it's going to be subject to what the country in question would allow. I don't like the idea of any administration having the license to do as they please that's why any action taken should be subject to checks and balances.

Do unto others before they do unto you

[fj1200]

Do unto others before they do unto you

I prefer this one:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[red states rule]

I prefer this one:

I prefer this t shirt that I own and wear with pride

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaomil600.jpg

[jimnyc]

Certainly more than a brief and a process that is created by Congress "establishing tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." I also think you take reasonable a bit too far as we may not have access to deal with them at all and if we do it's going to be subject to what the country in question would allow. I don't like the idea of any administration having the license to do as they please that's why any action taken should be subject to checks and balances.

And then people die, it's really that simple. The more terrorists roam unimpeded, the longer we take, the more obstacles we face - it's just that much more time and opportunity for them to do what they do best, which is kill innocent people. Our choices are to kill them - or give them time to plan and kill others.

[fj1200]

The Congress shall have power ... To declare War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States), grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_court);To raise and support Armies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army), but no Appropriation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill) of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy);

etc.

[jimnyc]

I prefer this one:

What do we do when an armed person is fighting back against the police with ammunition? Do we hold them for due process, or do the police fight with their power and eliminate the threat? And hell, that's within a borders to a single gunman, and have no doubt, when police and such shoot, they shoot to kill. Now the ante is raised, as the terrorists aren't lone gunmen fighting the police, so many, many innocent lives are in the balance. And no different than killing someone without due process of the law because they are a grave threat here, they should receive the same when they are a more grave threat on foreign soil.

[fj1200]

And then people die, it's really that simple. The more terrorists roam unimpeded, the longer we take, the more obstacles we face - it's just that much more time and opportunity for them to do what they do best, which is kill innocent people. Our choices are to kill them - or give them time to plan and kill others.

People might​ die. The guilty are set free all the time.

[red states rule]

And then people die, it's really that simple. The more terrorists roam unimpeded, the longer we take, the more obstacles we face - it's just that much more time and opportunity for them to do what they do best, which is kill innocent people. Our choices are to kill them - or give them time to plan and kill others.

Jim, as John Wayne said in the movie "The Green Berets"

"Due process out here is a bullet"

Something folks like fj needs to learn

[fj1200]

What do we do when an armed person is fighting back against the police with ammunition? Do we hold them for due process, or do the police fight with their power and eliminate the threat? And hell, that's within a borders to a single gunman, and have no doubt, when police and such shoot, they shoot to kill. Now the ante is raised, as the terrorists aren't lone gunmen fighting the police, so many, many innocent lives are in the balance. And no different than killing someone without due process of the law because they are a grave threat here, they should receive the same when they are a more grave threat on foreign soil.

Imminent danger is not the same thing.

[red states rule]

Imminent danger is not the same thing.

It is amazing how some people want to fight a WAR with law books, lawyers, and treat acts of terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war

[jimnyc]

People might​ die. The guilty are set free all the time.


Imminent danger is not the same thing.

So let known terrorist leaders, who have planned attacks before, continue on because we might hurt their due process, and they might not do so again? And further, we should be more forceful to an American with a gun, then we should be with an American who plans terrorist attacks, because we don't know if they'll do so in an hour or in a week?

[fj1200]

Jim, as John Wayne said in the movie "The Green Berets"

"Due process out here is a bullet"

Something folks like fj needs to learn

:laugh: Are you honestly equating battle field operations from a movie with a planned drone strike?

[fj1200]

It is amazing how some people want to fight a WAR with law books, lawyers, and treat acts of terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war

It's amazing how some people will toss out the Constitution for convenience sake. I didn't think you'd buy the Obama administrations rationale on something like this.

[jimnyc]

It's amazing how some people will toss out the Constitution for convenience sake. I didn't think you'd buy the Obama administrations rationale on something like this.

I don't think killing a terrorist who desires to kill masses is for convenience sake, but rather for the sake of innocent lives.

[fj1200]

So let known terrorist leaders, who have planned attacks before, continue on because we might hurt their due process, and they might not do so again? And further, we should be more forceful to an American with a gun, then we should be with an American who plans terrorist attacks, because we don't know if they'll do so in an hour or in a week?

Are you purposefully avoiding the obvious argument that once a process is in place we will have tools to deal with the scenario? And do you also recall how long it took to take the action against him from the time he was on the radar?

[fj1200]

I don't think killing a terrorist who desires to kill masses is for convenience sake, but rather for the sake of innocent lives.

What's the justification next time?

[red states rule]

:laugh: Are you honestly equating battle field operations from a movie with a planned drone strike?

I am saying if we know where our enemies are KILL THEM

You want to what - arrest them and read them their rights?

[jimnyc]

Are you purposefully avoiding the obvious argument that once a process is in place we will have tools to deal with the scenario? And do you also recall how long it took to take the action against him from the time he was on the radar?

Not at all, I just disagree that we allow an opportunity to eliminate a terrorist go by, because we are waiting for something to pass through Congress. That delay can kill many innocent people. I'm all for changes in the process and updating of laws and whatever it takes, but I don't think the delay is worth innocent lives. And that's just it, miss an opportunity that he is on the radar, and you may not see him again until he's planned and executed several attacks.

[fj1200]

I am saying if we know where our enemies are KILL THEM

You want to what - arrest them and read them their rights?

Are you even paying attention?

[jimnyc]

What's the justification next time?

Same thing every time, saving lives. In no scenario do I see a terrorists rights trumping that of innocent lives.

[fj1200]

Not at all, I just disagree that we allow an opportunity to eliminate a terrorist go by, because we are waiting for something to pass through Congress. That delay can kill many innocent people. I'm all for changes in the process and updating of laws and whatever it takes, but I don't think the delay is worth innocent lives. And that's just it, miss an opportunity that he is on the radar, and you may not see him again until he's planned and executed several attacks.

Not every US born terrorist requires an act of Congress. What if he's in the middle of China? Send in the drones?

[red states rule]

Are you even paying attention?

OK you are back to being FU now

Go ahead and go into your professional troll mode now

[fj1200]

Same thing every time, saving lives. In no scenario do I see a terrorists rights trumping that of innocent lives.

All right then, no sense in staying on the merry-go-round.

[fj1200]

OK you are back to being FU now

Go ahead and go into your professional troll mode now

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed your questions were answered before being asked.

[jimnyc]

Not every US born terrorist requires an act of Congress. What if he's in the middle of China? Send in the drones?

If that's what it takes. I doubt China would allow a known terrorist to roam freely, as you would see in Yemen or Pakistan, but if they did, we eliminate the terrorist just the same.

[jimnyc]

All right then, no sense in staying on the merry-go-round.

So be it, didn't realize it was a game and that I was out of line in anyway with my speaking. We agree to disagree then.

[red states rule]

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed your questions were answered before being asked.

Whatever FU. Take your yellow crime scene tape, and head out onto the battlefield and see how far you will get

[fj1200]

If that's what it takes. I doubt China would allow a known terrorist to roam freely, as you would see in Yemen or Pakistan, but if they did, we eliminate the terrorist just the same.

An act of war then?

[fj1200]

So be it, didn't realize it was a game and that I was out of line in anyway with my speaking. We agree to disagree then.

Not out of line, just the same arguments back and forth.


Whatever FU. Take your yellow crime scene tape, and head out onto the battlefield and see how far you will get

I guess rereading the thread was too much to ask.

[Drummond]

I agree with both Tyr and Jim. Yes, Obama was rather more hesitant in going after bin Laden than he should have been. But I also agree with Jim's argument.

Fact is, you do what you must to combat any possibility of a terrorist threat. The nationality of the terrorist (or suspected terrorist) surely shouldn't come into it .. just by being a terrorist, an individual becomes an enemy of the nation s/he would oppose .. therefore, by what right would that individual expect any degree of special treatment BECAUSE of that nationality ?

I firmly believe that no terrorist should consider himself (or herself) to belong to any nation, since that terrorist will have forsaken any loyalty to it, or its people. They want to operate outside the boundaries of civilised conduct ? Then by what right do any of them belong to any civilisation ??

[Gaffer]

Imminent danger is the secret word. He's a known terrorist leader involved in many attacks and planning more. That means it's imminent he be taken out as quickly as possible. Those around him are part of his organization, get them too.

As for congress being involved. That's what the executive position is there for. To take action when immediate action is needed. Congress is for the long drawn out debates and blowing of hot air.

I despise zero. I seriously doubt he had anything to do with this strike other than to sign the order giving the okay to do this if the opportunity came up. It was probably ordered by a regional commander of the CIA. Don't give the pretender more credit than he deserves.

[red states rule]

Imminent danger is the secret word. He's a known terrorist leader involved in many attacks and planning more. That means it's imminent he be taken out as quickly as possible. Those around him are part of his organization, get them too.

As for congress being involved. That's what the executive position is there for. To take action when immediate action is needed. Congress is for the long drawn out debates and blowing of hot air.

I despise zero. I seriously doubt he had anything to do with this strike other than to sign the order giving the okay to do this if the opportunity came up. It was probably ordered by a regional commander of the CIA. Don't give the pretender more credit than he deserves.

As usual you are spot on Gaffer

Were you a DI when your served? I think you could give some here the attitude adjustment they so badly need

[fj1200]

Imminent danger is the secret word. He's a known terrorist leader involved in many attacks and planning more. That means it's imminent he be taken out as quickly as possible. Those around him are part of his organization, get them too.

As for congress being involved. That's what the executive position is there for. To take action when immediate action is needed. Congress is for the long drawn out debates and blowing of hot air.

I despise zero. I seriously doubt he had anything to do with this strike other than to sign the order giving the okay to do this if the opportunity came up. It was probably ordered by a regional commander of the CIA. Don't give the pretender more credit than he deserves.

I agree that the Executive is responsible for immediate action but those actions should be guided by, and subject to, the other branches. As far as "imminent" goes, Awlaki was on the kill list for a year and a half.


As usual you are spot on Gaffer

Were you a DI when your served? I think you could give some here the attitude adjustment they so badly need

:rolleyes:

[red states rule]

I agree that the Executive is responsible for immediate action but those actions should be guided by, and subject to, the other branches. As far as "imminent" goes, Awlaki was on the kill list for a year and a half.



:rolleyes:

Guilty conscience FU or just being your normal troll self? I give a complement to a man who served his country and you offer sarcasm

[fj1200]

Guilty conscience FU or just being your normal troll self? I give a complement to a man who served his country and you offer sarcasm

Don't equate yourself to Gaffer, he gets respect you get sarcasm.

[red states rule]

Don't equate yourself to Gaffer, he gets respect you get sarcasm.

Whatever FU. You are becoming more and more like OCA. One Obnoxious Condescending Asshole

[fj1200]

Whatever FU. You are becoming more and more like OCA. One Obnoxious Condescending Asshole

:rolleyes: I've had better conversations with Psychoblues than what you've been offering up.

[red states rule]

:rolleyes: I've had better conversations with Psychoblues than what you've been offering up.

So you are a drunk to? That answers many questions FU :laugh2:

[fj1200]

So you are a drunk to? That answers many questions FU :laugh2:

You misread yet again, a drunk is more coherent than you.

[red states rule]

You misread yet again, a drunk is more coherent than you.

Don't worry FU I understand it's not you posting - it is Jack Daniels

[fj1200]

Don't worry FU I understand it's not you posting - it is Jack Daniels

We see who's condescending now don't we? Pot, meet kettle.

[red states rule]

We see who's condescending now don't we? Pot, meet kettle.

Sorry if the turth hurts FU. Go climb back in the bottle with PB and have a conversation :laugh2:

[fj1200]

Sorry if the turth hurts FU. Go climb back in the bottle with PB and have a conversation :laugh2:

:laugh: You have no clue about truth. Making up for your stupid posting with bald faced lies. Expected from you.

Of course if I WERE drunk, I'd still be kicking you around in a thread wouldn't I. :laugh:

[Gaffer]

As usual you are spot on Gaffer

Were you a DI when your served? I think you could give some here the attitude adjustment they so badly need

Nope I was a regular infantryman. Lots of combat and tactical experience, but never a DI. I didn't have the stract attitude that a DI needs. I was more laid back. Combat troops don't worry about how they look or little things like saluting and shined shoes. But a DI is usually a combat veteran.

I'm also a history buff, the military did inspire me learn about history.

[red states rule]

:laugh: You have no clue about truth. Making up for your stupid posting with bald faced lies. Expected from you.

Of course if I WERE drunk, I'd still be kicking you around in a thread wouldn't I. :laugh:

It is hard to believe you could be more obnoxious with you are drunk then sober

Try relaxing like you last night FU

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-m0tAJNWg4Yw/T7M4Ig-m--I/AAAAAAAAlRg/dtNjsRX-mq4/s640/hilarious_drunk_and_wasted_people_04.jpg

[fj1200]

It is hard to believe you could be more obnoxious with you are drunk then sober

Try relaxing like you last night FU

:laugh: And I'M the drunk one. :laugh:

[red states rule]

:laugh: And I'M the drunk one. :laugh:

Now you play "leave out a word Police" Get drunk and throw up in your car FU

Noone would probably notice it on the floorboards. It would blend in just fine :laugh2:

[jafar00]

I have no sympathy for terrorists and yet obama's statement that it was an easy decision to kill the 16 year old American boy

Now you disagree with drone strikes killing innocent people? Twist and shout Tyr :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now you disagree with drone strikes killing innocent people? Twist and shout Tyr :)

Ya converted me baby! Praise Allah and prayer carpetrug burns Im saved! I guess I'll be getting a call from the United Jihadist Union for membership dues along about Friday. I'll have to decline, although the 72 virgins may be a delicious and tempting offer its the rather steep price Im not inclined to agree with. My one young beautiful wife will just have to do and she'll just have to work a bit of overtime to make up for me refusing such an offer..:laugh:

[fj1200]

Now you play "leave out a word Police" Get drunk and throw up in your car FU

Noone would probably notice it on the floorboards. It would blend in just fine :laugh2:

:slap: It wasn't the leave out a word police it was you posting like a drunk in a post where you accuse others of the same thing. It's called irony. :laugh:

Two things I can take away from this thread; 1. It doesn't take much to turn you into a lying sack, and 2. You see the Constitution as mere suggestion. The fact that you are arguing FOR an Obama position just adds to the amusement.