Secret panel can put Americans on kill list

I'm not comfortable with this either. I think these procedures should be public.
 
I'm not comfortable with this either. I think these procedures should be public.
Do you think even a public panel should have the power to order the killing of American citizens without trial? Also, does American citizenship make a difference to you? (I mean this inquisitively.)
 
America is on a very slippery slope with this.
 
Opposing this program, and its purported slippery slope which will eventually lead to the government being able to secretly declare a person an "unperson," is a fine idea ideologically speaking. But what other alternatives do you have in mind to bring American citizen terrorist leaders to justice? Spec-ops assault? Contact the local police? We could also ask them to turn themselves in, I guess.

Personally though I prefer to hear that a terrorist who happened to be American citizen was blown apart. It is a much better alternative than hearing that the terrorists are still at large or hearing that a couple of soldiers got gunned down while trying to arrest a terrorist.
 
Am I the only person who thinks that this whole secret panel thing is actually really cool?
 
Personally though I prefer to hear that a terrorist who happened to be American citizen was blown apart.
Yeah, America should do this every month. Kill an American and announce that a terrorist who happened to be American was blown apart.
 
And most conservatives apparently see no problem with it.
 
Do you think even a public panel should have the power to order the killing of American citizens without trial? Also, does American citizenship make a difference to you? (I mean this inquisitively.)
No and no. It would be despicable even if the panel was public, but it would at least show that the administration has a shred of respect for the citizenry.
Opposing this program, and its purported slippery slope which will eventually lead to the government being able to secretly declare a person an "unperson," is a fine idea ideologically speaking. But what other alternatives do you have in mind to bring American citizen terrorist leaders to justice? Spec-ops assault? Contact the local police? We could also ask them to turn themselves in, I guess.
Any of those are preferable to murdering suspected criminals with drone strikes.
Personally though I prefer to hear that a terrorist who happened to be American citizen was blown apart. It is a much better alternative than hearing that the terrorists are still at large or hearing that a couple of soldiers got gunned down while trying to arrest a terrorist.
I think you need to retake that political compass test. Or perhaps just drop the minus sign.
 
What do you think the criteria for the difference is? Brown people with funny names get droned?
I doubt race has anything to do with it, really. There was a trial for Zacarias Moussaoui, an al-Qaeda conspirator. There is also a trial for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the attempted underwear bomber, and Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber.
 
Timothy McVeigh was the direct actor in terrorism, but he was still given a trial. Terrorist bombers Eric Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski were also similarly tried in U.S. courts.

McVeigh (or the others) wasnt a member of an established group dediced to harming US citizens was he?

They were also still within the confines of the US itself.

A long history of unconstitutional acts by the government does not forgive present or future unconstitutional acts.

Who do you think knows the consitution better, you or Obama? Simply because you declare such as unconstitutional doesnt make it so.

Again, he was a leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. That made him a legitimate target. Not an execution.

Everyone deserves a trial.

Everyone may deserve one, but in war, not everyone gets one. Thats just the way reality is.
 
Any of those are preferable to murdering suspected criminals with drone strikes.

Suspected criminals who we have some evidence against him. If you think that those options are better, then tell me why they are.

I personally believe that the benefits of the drone strike is that it allows for elimination of armed assailants without risking allied soldiers in a firefight. Its con, of course, is that we would never know for sure if the assailants could have been talked down or captured non-lethally.

I think you need to retake that political compass test. Or perhaps just drop the minus sign.

I think you misunderstand me. I do not think that this is a good thing, only that I understand why the government would be willing to do this and believe that they are still just. I would personally loathe sending in soldiers into a dangerous situation. Improvements to the system is possible, I expect, but what do you propose an improvement is?

I am getting tired of criticizing some vague cloud in the air and shaking your fists without anything creative coming out of these debates.

What do you think the criteria for the difference is? Brown people with funny names get droned?

And then there's this as well.
 
Who do you think knows the consitution better, you or Obama? Simply because you declare such as unconstitutional doesnt make it so.

Debatable.
 
Point to me the text in the Constitution that does away with the 5th Amendment right to due process.

I dont profess to be a constitutional scholar. Obama does tho. You are an attorney, why dont you file suit against him on those grounds?

Debatable.

Not really.
 
Back
Top Bottom