February 07, 2013
— Ace I wrote a post over at the Conversation suggesting we can square the Assassination Power Circle by returning to the very ancient concept of "outlawry," in which a criminal is declared outside the protection of the law.
The chief benefit of this is that it's a transparent process. Strike that-- the chief benefit of this is that it is a process in the first place, and not just One Man deciding which citizens will get whacked this weekend.
Posted by: Ace at
02:21 PM
| Comments (285)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: toby928© at February 07, 2013 02:24 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 07, 2013 02:24 PM (RuUvx)
Posted by: Minuteman at February 07, 2013 02:24 PM (jpbOX)
Posted by: Hirohito at February 07, 2013 02:25 PM (r2PLg)
I believe we used to call them desperadoes.
Posted by: Linda Ronstadt at February 07, 2013 02:25 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: logprof at February 07, 2013 02:25 PM (mi1DY)
Posted by: Jordan at February 07, 2013 02:25 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: L, elle at February 07, 2013 02:26 PM (0PiQ4)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:26 PM (p/PNg)
I believe we used to call them desperadoes.
The term you're looking for is Jackanapes.
Posted by: Buzz Killington at February 07, 2013 02:26 PM (6TB1Z)
Glenn Reynolds is way out in front on this. When we are all criminals, government can do anything they like to us. Oh, wait, they already do.
Posted by: pep at February 07, 2013 02:27 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at February 07, 2013 02:27 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 02:27 PM (GsoHv)
....in which a criminal is declared outside the protection of the law.
I believe we used to call them desperadoes.
Nonsense, we call 'um my sons.
Posted by: Ma Barker at February 07, 2013 02:28 PM (ndqJC)
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024233.html
I'm going to disagree with Mr Auster. I mean, we're all in agreement that pirates swaying gently in the breeze is a lovely sight. But unless there's a process of law, we're on course to become pirates ourselves.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 02:28 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at February 07, 2013 02:29 PM (LSTjp)
Posted by: Hirohito at February 07, 2013 02:29 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 02:29 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Marmo at February 07, 2013 02:29 PM (pcgW1)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:29 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: Craig Poe at February 07, 2013 02:29 PM (BVkEs)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2013 02:30 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Craig Poe at February 07, 2013 06:29 PM (BVkEs)
If you are a muslim daddy its not legitimate assassination if you can show that it was an honor killing.
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka wright at February 07, 2013 02:30 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on KINDLE finally at February 07, 2013 02:31 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (Dnbau)
Kinda like the guy that made the anti-islam video?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (+z4pE)
And that's us, fellas.
Posted by: mongo78 at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (2b46R)
Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: can't let go of old memes at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2013 02:32 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on KINDLE finally at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: rickb223 at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (45vNz)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on KINDLE finally at February 07, 2013 06:31 PM (l86i3)
What difference does it make anyway?? Whether its with obamacare, rationed health care services and unelected beurocrats on a death panel deciding when granny should just get some asprin and be told to hurry up and die, or a drone strike....the end result is the same.
If we didnt want to give that cocksucking piece of shit the ability to kill americans, we shouldnt have let them enact Obamacare.
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka wright at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: logprof at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (mi1DY)
I think jackanapes refers to kids, but it's such a damned good word....
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Marmo at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (pcgW1)
Posted by: Lauren at February 07, 2013 02:33 PM (wsGWu)
Posted by: can't let go of old memes at February 07, 2013 02:34 PM (QupBk)
Oh wait, the SPLC already does that.
Posted by: WheelmanForHire at February 07, 2013 02:34 PM (l8nIR)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 02:34 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:34 PM (r2PLg)
That would be a bill of attainder. And as such is against the Constitution.
I like my resolution better.
1. Citizen has to not be in the US or within Sovereign US territory.
2. Citizen must be accused of treason.
3. Citizen must have an arrest warrant issued against him for treason.
4. DOJ must publicly announce said warrant and demand the Citizen repatriate to answer the charges.
5. After a reasonable period to respond (No less than 3 months) then the President may use personal discretion as to whether the Citizen will be arrested or killed if his location is discovered and the Citizen still has not repatriated.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 02:35 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on KINDLE finally at February 07, 2013 02:35 PM (l86i3)
The fuck is this shit?
US Citizens are protected by the US Constitution in Yemen. Unfortunately they are also bound by the laws of Yemen which, if they break, means they stand to be arrested by Yemenis. Then it's the US Government's duty to rescue them (if all they did was trip over a merchant's Koran stand) or else to let them rot (if they were robbing the merchant).
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 02:35 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka wright at February 07, 2013 02:35 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on KINDLE finally at February 07, 2013 02:36 PM (l86i3)
Advocates of central planning always envision themselves as the central planner.
Advocates of drone assasinations always envision themselves at the joystick.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2013 02:36 PM (qqZuQ)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:36 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: confessions of a beachcomber at February 07, 2013 02:36 PM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Combine of the Yeast at February 07, 2013 02:36 PM (F4i/Q)
kind of like a loose version of "Running Man"
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: steevy at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (9XBK2)
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka wright at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (0q2P7)
Make the list public. $1M reward alive, $500k dead, no questions asked.
You'd have them all within a month. Their own people would give them up.
Posted by: @PurpAv at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (J6hHs)
Note that "Nor be deprived of life . . ." is NOT moderated by the same 'in time of War' qualifiers as "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless . . ." There is no 'unless' there. Interesting no? No matter how 'ethical' and 'wise' these 'targeted killings' (aka assassinations) are, there's good cause to think they ain't legal. Obama: Foresworn. Again.
Posted by: starboardhelm at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (hHgxI)
Would that time period change if you knew he was actively plotting to kill other Americans? Al-Awlaki, to pick a name at random.
Posted by: pep at February 07, 2013 02:37 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:38 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: logprof at February 07, 2013 02:38 PM (mi1DY)
Mike the Moose all that is not required, specifically the arrest warrant, publishing of said warrant, and waiting period. I also think, that in time of war, it is a really really bad idea. You do not want lawyers running the battlefield
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 02:38 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:38 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:38 PM (r2PLg)
No; you need the courts to take them all to trial for treason. If they can't show up because, oh darn, they're too busy firing rockets at Jews and embassies then they can be convicted in absentia.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 02:39 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on KINDLE finally at February 07, 2013 02:39 PM (l86i3)
Way over the line with that one.
I'm not a lawyer.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 02:39 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Fritz, Outlaw Citizen at February 07, 2013 02:40 PM (WM+rJ)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:40 PM (p/PNg)
Note: I am not trying to argue I am undecided and trying to process it all still.
Posted by: Hirohito at February 07, 2013 06:29 PM (r2PLg)
In some respects though this is a bit of a different problem. This isn't an "imminent" threat. This is a "currently happening thing."
Less people would have a problem with the memo I think if "imminent" weren't defined to be "well we think something might happen."
Dude's hijacked a jetliner (for hypothetical case, let's say it's empty) wants to fly it into a building: blow the sucker up.
Dude says he might at one point want to harm someone...erg....this is a trickier proposition. I certainly don't want a singular entity deciding who is a "threat" and who isn't. At least convene some sort of tribunal, maybe like the FISA courts.
Posted by: tsrblke at February 07, 2013 02:40 PM (GaqMa)
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 offence 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.
Nope. Still no 'unless' there.
Posted by: starboardhelm at February 07, 2013 02:40 PM (hHgxI)
No! That's what made it funny.
And my affect was used incorrectly....
I think you and I are playing different games.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 02:40 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Craig Poe at February 07, 2013 02:40 PM (BVkEs)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:41 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: John P. Squibob at February 07, 2013 02:42 PM (kqqGm)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2013 02:42 PM (w+Dvf)
Posted by: @PurpAv at February 07, 2013 02:42 PM (J6hHs)
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka wright at February 07, 2013 02:42 PM (+OTLF)
The next step for Obama will be to redefine "terrorist". Once a terrorist is defined as anyone opposing government policies, he'll have a clear path for domestic drone strikes.
Posted by: Marmo at February 07, 2013 02:42 PM (pcgW1)
Posted by: confessions of a beachcomber at February 07, 2013 02:42 PM (LpQbZ)
Uh the federal government is curtailing citizen's liberty every day and granting defacto or dejure US citizen rights to foreigners everyday.
We're long past "undermining citizenship" we're now redefining it.
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 06:35 PM (QTHTd)
I'm not sure it's even that. They're protected from the US by the US constitution. It doesn't bind any other governments, at all.
Posted by: tsrblke at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Warden at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (HzhBE)
Heh- found this at Merriam-Webster On-Line:
DRONE noun \ˈdrôn\
Definition of DRONE
1: a stingless male bee (as of the honeybee) that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen
2: one that lives on the labors of others : parasite
3: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control
4a : drudge 1
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (qqZuQ)
Unlawful combatants? Evil BOOSH! Bad!
Assasinations of American citizens? Angelic bureaucrats! Good!
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (0WLla)
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka wright at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: BignJames at February 07, 2013 02:43 PM (Sg0G/)
Expose the process to the sunlight; have the case presented and challenged; take a vote. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Isn't that what non- barbarians do?
This would also address another concern: That the individual targeted for assassination might not even know he's been so designated, and have no chance to respond. Put his name in for consideration for an Authorization for Use of Lethal Force; let him submit documents in his defense if he likes.
uh hmm, documentation sent to any and all relatives , so the presumed american terrorist has a date to appear , publish in newspaper, set a trial , if necessary have a trial in absentia, strip of rights of found guilty of treason or terrorism .
if Found armed with a Known terorists group shooting at us well fine i realize no time for arrest and id checks.
we should actually know who is judge and jury.
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 02:44 PM (nqBYe)
If "terrorists" in general unlawful combatants, what about specific people targeted for killing by a drone strike? Not necessarily saying it's wrong, but what is the delineation between "people" and one person being targeted.
That's where people get uncomfortable. It may be a more rational "way of war", but it smacks a bit of a war of assisination., which I think was the point of Ace's post.
Is it better to kill a relatively handful of persons by drone strike than to turn a large section of Pakistan's tribal areas into radioactive glass? Or carpet bomb them the way the Russians did on Afghanistan in the '80's?
War is murder, there is no getting around that. There is nothing wonderful or uplifiting about it. The point is to make it as harsh as possible and get it over.
We have been "at war" with Salafist Islam since 1979, when the Islamic Republic of Iran declared it against the Great Satan (us).
This war will continue at the present rate until we determine to end it with extreme prejudice or surrender. My guess is that Obama isn't quite calling it "surrender" right now, more like "run away! run away!"
Shooting up some rubes with cruise missiles or a drone launched hellfire missile, in the desert is not going to win this war. It may appear to be "decapitating" the leadership of "Al Qaeda", which is what the Obama faithful news organs were declaring a couple of years ago, but that is not going to do it.
This is, I fear, target practice for his main goal of suppressing domestic dissent, especially if it appears to becoming violent. This Regime in Washington is not full of nice people who even give lipservice to any Constitutional restraints on what they think they can or cannot do.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at February 07, 2013 02:44 PM (RFeQD)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2013 02:44 PM (LCRYB)
Shit...ow ow ow! I pulled a muscle today, and hell, I can barely breathe. I was on top of the Coast Guard Headquarters, (and how cool is that? I even peed up there. Wooooo!). I was just stepping over a pile of cables, turned and coughed once, and SPROING. Not even my back....it's my ribs. Freaking ow! It better feel better tomorrow, I have lots of work to do. Grrr.
P.S. Ow, ow ow!
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at February 07, 2013 02:44 PM (s/ydT)
Posted by: steevy at February 07, 2013 02:44 PM (9XBK2)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 02:44 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Combine of the Yeast at February 07, 2013 02:44 PM (F4i/Q)
Only in the USA.
Why do you think Cheney set up his torture chambers in other countries?
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at February 07, 2013 02:45 PM (LSTjp)
Posted by: navybrat at February 07, 2013 02:45 PM (0pxtK)
If you are talking about killing US Citizens then yes all of that should apply at a minimum. Time of war or no. You are making the argument that you have followed process, attempted to give the Citizen their 5th amendment rights which they declined by not repatriating and surrendering as is their responsibility when they discover a federal warrant has been issued for their arrest. And therefore the US can now assert its right to protect itself from further actions aiding the enemy.
This is not about combatants, or Marines on the field. There are different provisions for that type of action, collateral damage and the like. This is for specifically targeting US Citizens while on foreign soil. Not non-specifically killing them in a military action which serves a different purpose.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 02:45 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 07, 2013 02:45 PM (zpqa2)
what can we do to fight against that? and how it would be used?
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 02:45 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:45 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: rickb223 at February 07, 2013 02:46 PM (d0Dmj)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:46 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: sTevo at February 07, 2013 02:46 PM (VMcEw)
So there is possibly a slippery slope when defining what constitutes an imminent threat.
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 06:46 PM (r2PLg)
If by "slippery slope" you mean the memo pretty much does away with the idea of imminent all together.
Yes. Then that.
Posted by: tsrblke at February 07, 2013 02:47 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Kirl Rove [/i] at February 07, 2013 02:47 PM (feFL6)
That was Auster's point as well. It was as bad a point when Auster said it as when you said it.
The whole Constitution is a contract between the citizens and their Government. When it says "person" it means "citizen". It can't apply to persons who did not sign that contract.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 02:48 PM (QTHTd)
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 offence 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; (NO 'except', NO 'unless')
nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Still don't see it. Due process of law . . . I guess that's whatever His Majesty Obama says it is?
Posted by: starboardhelm at February 07, 2013 02:48 PM (hHgxI)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:48 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: soothsayer's fake quotes at February 07, 2013 02:48 PM (oxIUw)
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 02:48 PM (nqBYe)
So how do you establish that the citizen has been notified? Also, isn't it implicit that taking up arms against fellow Americans means you are a sought-after felon?
Posted by: pep at February 07, 2013 02:49 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2013 02:49 PM (Bq2kJ)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 02:50 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 07, 2013 02:50 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:51 PM (p/PNg)
Yeah. But I was going to let that slide. The Iranian theory of wilayat al-faqih corresponds closely to the Salafists' deference to "the Book and the Sunna" which in practice means the imams who interpret the Book and the Sunna.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 02:51 PM (QTHTd)
good times... good times....
Posted by: wiserbud at February 07, 2013 02:51 PM (gCa4h)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2013 02:52 PM (LCRYB)
Now you're catching on. The US Constitution has about as much force today as the USSR's did.
Posted by: @PurpAv at February 07, 2013 02:52 PM (J6hHs)
Posted by: Kris Rock [/i] at February 07, 2013 02:53 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2013 02:53 PM (Bq2kJ)
Posted by: Prezzy Killbox at February 07, 2013 02:53 PM (WM+rJ)
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at February 07, 2013 06:45 PM (LSTjp)
How quaint. You think this all started in 2000, don't you?
Posted by: garrett at February 07, 2013 02:53 PM (6OjR8)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 02:54 PM (Dnbau)
Yes because Congress does not have the power to deprive you of due process.
For that matter neither does the President. But...
As a Citizen abroad you have the responsibility to repatriate and surrender if you discovery ANY federal warrant is issued for your arrest. Specifically for Treason, you are aiding the enemy so at some point your failure to surrender to competent authority and answer the charges against you can be construed as intent not to answer for said charges in a court of law. Which then the right of the US to defend itself comes into play.
The answer is simple for those that don't want to get dead. You get a federal warrant issued against you for treason. Go to an embassy and surrender. Then you won't get kilt. AND you will get your due process.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 02:54 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: mugiwara at February 07, 2013 02:54 PM (hpYnL)
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 02:54 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: wooga at February 07, 2013 02:55 PM (CB+1e)
It would better apply to John Derbyshire
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 02:55 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 02:55 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: soothsayer's fake quotes at February 07, 2013 02:57 PM (NNTrd)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 02:57 PM (p/PNg)
---
I beg to differ.
Posted by: Monica at February 07, 2013 06:55 PM (VMcEw)
*****
Who were first, second and third?
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2013 02:57 PM (qqZuQ)
Nah, screw that noise.
Posted by: pep at February 07, 2013 02:57 PM (6TB1Z)
Again, I feel so sorry for any Monica's born prior to 1996. Especially those born 1990 or so. All their lives they'd heard nothing but blowjob jokes.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 02:58 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 02:58 PM (r2PLg)
And when you invoke Treason, here comes Article, Section 3.
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.
We can argue whether the Testimony of two Witnesses has to be in open Court (grammar) later. But for now who are these witnesses that King Barry has heard from?
Posted by: John P. Squibob at February 07, 2013 02:58 PM (kqqGm)
Salafi (arabic) who emphasises the Salaf ("predecessors" or "ancestors"), the earliest Muslims, as model examples of Islamic practice.
The modern usage connects Salafism to Wahhabism (specifically), which is Sunni, but broadly speaking, the Islamic Republic of Iran is "salafist".
It is, again, a distinction without a difference. Sunni and Shia would make war on each other constantly if there was not the infidel West to distract them.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at February 07, 2013 02:58 PM (RFeQD)
I think we need one of those beehives we were drooling over a few days ago.
And the M1A2 to fire it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 02:58 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at February 07, 2013 02:58 PM (FsUAO)
After that, the only thing that calms me down is the soothing voice of Daddy Barack.
Posted by: Herman Hideitinmypooper at February 07, 2013 02:59 PM (HzhBE)
Posted by: rickb223 at February 07, 2013 02:59 PM (d0Dmj)
Posted by: pep at February 07, 2013 06:57 PM (6TB1Z)
You haven't learned to fake it yet?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 03:00 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 07, 2013 03:00 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:00 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: starboardhelm at February 07, 2013 03:00 PM (hHgxI)
Posted by: the simpsons have a quote for every occasion at February 07, 2013 03:01 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:01 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: John P. Squibob at February 07, 2013 06:58 PM (kqqGm)
well hell couldn't it be trust worthy folks such as the MB what a nice way to off your opponent
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 03:01 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 03:01 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 07, 2013 03:01 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: archie goodwin at February 07, 2013 03:02 PM (Jsiw/)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:02 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 03:02 PM (nqBYe)
58 How the flying schmuck am I getting eminent in my imminent.
------------
Just blame it on zombie Steve Jobs. Everyone else does.
Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at February 07, 2013 03:02 PM (FzhYM)
Once again if you want your PROCESS follow the LAW and return to the US when a warrant for Treason is issued for your arrest. It is your obligation and duty as a Citizen to do so as you have NO RIGHT to travel outside sovereign US holdings.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 03:02 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: navybrat at February 07, 2013 03:03 PM (0pxtK)
Posted by: Fletch at February 07, 2013 03:03 PM (6OjR8)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2013 03:03 PM (Bq2kJ)
Posted by: Bob, Henchman at Large at February 07, 2013 03:03 PM (1efte)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:03 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: Fletch at February 07, 2013 07:03 PM (6OjR
*****
Fixed
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2013 03:04 PM (qqZuQ)
Despite past assurances that tourists are safe in their country, Mexican tourism officials are again faced with trying to explain away another report of crime against foreign visitors.
The latest incident took place in the resort town of Acapulco, where six Spanish tourists on vacation were raped Sunday by masked gunmen.
Unlike many crimes involving drug violence in the country's interior states, the rapes took place near the beach, where the tourists were renting bungalows near four-star hotels.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at February 07, 2013 03:04 PM (NTBjC)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:05 PM (p/PNg)
Here's the point, though: Shi'ism holds that some of those first "Companions" to the Prophet were traitors. Seriously. They said some bone-chilling stuff against, especially, Mu'awiya but also 'Uthman and 'Umar. Sunnis hold 'Umar as a saint, and agree that 'Uthman was also a saint until halfway through his reign. So Shi'ites can't be literally "salafist".
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (QTHTd)
i mean
well tough he should have had a better father.
or mother
or granma
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (nqBYe)
What kind of dispersion do you get over that 500 meter range?
And do I have to reinforce the floor of my garage?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (GsoHv)
i]the rapes took place near the beach, where the tourists were renting bungalows near four-star hotels.
It's not rape-rape if you are in a seaside bungalow.
Posted by: Whoopie at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (6OjR8)
Al-Awiaki's kid was killed two weeks after he was assassinated in a separate drone attack. , "a 16-year-old American citizen from Denver, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was the son of terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi. He did not have a trial. He was never waterboarded. He was sixteen."
Why? Because his father was a terrorist?
Sounds like the old "corruption of blood" reasoning?
Where did I see that before? Oh Yeah, the Constitution Article III Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
If the President does this, Is It OK?
Posted by: rd at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (zLp5I)
Posted by: rickb223 at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (d0Dmj)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (Bq2kJ)
Posted by: soothsayer's fake quotes at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (ZgBZU)
Quite the contrary when the elected officials of the US go full tard and allow aliens uneducated in the historic interpretation of our bill of rights to tilt the political balance wildly they are in fact devaluing the nature and rights of the true citizens of this nation.
There should be a reckoning.
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (LRFds)
The latest incident took place in the resort town of Acapulco, where six Spanish tourists on vacation were raped Sunday by masked gunmen.
Unlike many crimes involving drug violence in the country's interior states, the rapes took place near the beach, where the tourists were renting bungalows near four-star hotels.
They were just doing some S&M. You know, Spaniards and Mexicans.
Posted by: Steve Martin, not longer really funny at February 07, 2013 03:06 PM (kqqGm)
Posted by: Herman Hideitinmypooper at February 07, 2013 03:07 PM (HzhBE)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:07 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 03:07 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: toby928© at February 07, 2013 03:07 PM (QupBk)
thunerb ----
OK, I get the LOAC argument, now you need to explain how LOAC overrides the Constitution and nullifies the Due Process thingee.
Posted by: Old Bob at February 07, 2013 03:07 PM (i9GsZ)
Posted by: Craig Poe at February 07, 2013 03:08 PM (BVkEs)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:09 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 07, 2013 03:09 PM (LqrVH)
Posted by: soothsayer's fake quotes at February 07, 2013 03:09 PM (ZgBZU)
Posted by: jakeman at February 07, 2013 03:09 PM (96M6e)
I had an old girlfriend who used to drone on...and on....and on....
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 03:10 PM (GsoHv)
Think this through, Ace. What happens when we are all declared criminals
We have, conservatives, Republicans and Tea Partiers that is. You just haven't been paying attention.
Posted by: Decaf at February 07, 2013 03:10 PM (NmvvV)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:10 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2013 03:11 PM (Bq2kJ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 07, 2013 03:11 PM (piMMO)
The President isn't convicting you or even judging you for treason. He judges you as a threat to the US. I get that you all don't see that your rights are substantially different when you leave the US. For instance what is free speech here, can be sedition on foreign soil. If you want your full cadre of rights don't leave the US.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 03:11 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 07, 2013 07:09 PM (LqrVH)
can i admit the idea of Holder of 300 dead mexicans and boarder guards being in charge of life taking decisions isn't comforting
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2013 03:11 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2013 03:12 PM (Bq2kJ)
You know, Mark Levin covered this yesterday.
I can't say I completely agree with him, but he spent at least 30 minutes on this during yesterday's (2nd hour I think) show.
Posted by: garrett at February 07, 2013 03:12 PM (6OjR8)
I think the citizens should pick a lawyer from every county in each state to face gladiatorial combat every four years.
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 03:12 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Jean at February 07, 2013 03:12 PM (gKGI0)
However imperfect your solution may be (and I am sure someone will find a flaw -- real or imagined) it removes the decision from the administration, with all of its temptations to act politically, rather than from a national security perspective.
Now, some of you will say that an American president would never stoop so low as to politicize the most important decisions delegated to him by the people and the Constitution....
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2013 03:12 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:13 PM (p/PNg)
http://tinyurl.com/aog2mzf Close approach of 150' meteor, closer than some satellites. Bloomberg.com
{sigh}
Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 07, 2013 03:13 PM (qyv02)
Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, heÂ’d be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him.
-Judge Napolitano
Posted by: Jones in CO at February 07, 2013 03:13 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Whatev at February 07, 2013 03:14 PM (A7Wh1)
Posted by: toby928© at February 07, 2013 03:14 PM (QupBk)
What "Law of Armed Conflict" treaty are you citing, thunderb?
Moreover, the treaties of the United States do not supercede the amendments to the US Constitution, among them the Fifth Amendment, guaranteeing due process.
Posted by: imp at February 07, 2013 03:14 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Jean at February 07, 2013 03:15 PM (gKGI0)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 07, 2013 03:15 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2013 03:15 PM (r2PLg)
LOACblog.com is helpful if you really want more info.
Al-shithead's son was not the target, he was traveling with someone who was. He was not a combatant. A child can never be a combatant. He was collateral damage. An argument can be had about whether they should have taken the shot then. But he was not the target.
Listen, I can't stand the JEF and Benghazi makes me sick. But LOAC was around lonnng before him and I am not going to pretend to be upset with drones only because he is using them to kill terrorists overseas.
What I don't like is we lose intel by not taking some of these guys alive.
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:16 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at February 07, 2013 03:16 PM (LSTjp)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:17 PM (p/PNg)
I disagree, there has been a concerted and purposeful obliteration of civics education as an understanding of the structure and tradition of the US system.
With one party trying to weaponize race, that is also "coincidentally" DEEPLY allied with the Education complex I am not sure I can ever accept Fiat Amnesty.
As such I am of the mind to punish ANY POLITICIAN responsible for said same to the limit of the law for the rest of my life.
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 03:17 PM (LRFds)
http://tinyurl.com/aog2mzf Close approach of 150' meteor, closer than some satellites. Bloomberg.com
{sigh}
Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 07, 2013 07:13 PM (qyv02)
quoted from the article: “No Earth impact is possible,”
The phrase that made my co-workers want to kill me when uttered: "NOTHING can stop us now..."
There is always hope.
Posted by: jwb7605 (Let It Burn) at February 07, 2013 03:17 PM (Qxe/p)
classified court. Show the intel
My problem is not in making sure the process has accuracy. My concern is making sure the accused gets the opportunity to claim their rights as a Citizen. Hence my solution which includes a public proclamation of a warrant to arrest under charges of treason, and a waiting period to give the accused time to surrender and claim their rights before the US acts in self defense and goes ZZAAPP!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 03:17 PM (0q2P7)
And the President has actually targeted and killed citizens, and plans to do so again at any time;
Doesn't that make him an imminent threat?
Posted by: starboardhelm at February 07, 2013 03:17 PM (hHgxI)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2013 03:18 PM (Bq2kJ)
If there is a convicted traitor to the US in the Yemen, then he is sentenced to death. The traitor gets the choice of checking in at the embassy and getting 20 years of free meals on Death Row, or else dying in terror and agony by drone right now.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 03:18 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:18 PM (p/PNg)
I am in favor of at a minimum using the Israeli standard for Operation Hand of God, 6 politicians 3 from each major party and 6 professionals.
What we have now is divine right of media allowing Bark to play God.
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 03:19 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 07, 2013 03:19 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 07, 2013 03:19 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 07, 2013 03:19 PM (p/PNg)
Posted by: Jones in CO at February 07, 2013 03:20 PM (8sCoq)
I can, however be less than thrilled that Bush would have been crucified for "shoulda had a better daddy" and Ogabe gets a pass.
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 03:20 PM (LRFds)
C'est pire qu'un crime - c'est une faute!!
Posted by: Joseph Fouché at February 07, 2013 03:20 PM (QTHTd)
thunderb - 210 ----
uh-huh - so you're saying that an international treaty has the authority to nullify - or perhaps even void - the Constitution? Mr. Holder has a desk for you in his outer office - you can liason with Mr. Kerry.
Posted by: Old Bob at February 07, 2013 03:20 PM (i9GsZ)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:21 PM (Dnbau)
who says it has not already happened....?
Would the press report it?
You can make the argument Waco was extra judicial murder...I would argue LAPD is engaged in the drive for it.....
Where does it end?
Posted by: sven10077 at February 07, 2013 03:23 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:24 PM (Dnbau)
From your post there:
"The Constitution, as Ron Paul always reminds us, does give Congress the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal."
The Constitution also explicitly prohibits Congress from passing Bills of Attainder.
Congress can no more create a hit list than can the President, or the Supreme Court if it comes to it.
The Constitution also explicitly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Since, as you cite, allows anyone to "persecute" the outlaw with impunity, it is not merely a sentence of death, but one of rape, torture, and slavery. Certainly those are all permissible once the person is outlawed, but the very act of outlawry is a violation of the Constitution first.
I also note that outlawry applied to those fleeing justice. Once we readmit it for terrorists, how soon before we accept it for all bail jumpers? Or just for failure to appear? That will cause some serious trouble for the narrative about Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Finally it should be noted that a bit of checking reveals some interesting people who have been outlawed and why. For example:
Eric the Red, who discovered Greenland, was outlawed(as was his father before him as it happens) for manslaughter. Since he couldn't stay home, Eric went off to discover and settle Greenland.
You see rather than being an expression of the power of the State, outlawry was rather an admission of the weakness of the State. They could not execute such an individual, so instead they promised not to punish his killer, or accept revenge against that killer under the rules of blood vengeance and feud. And that was supposed to be "justice". Well, assuming the killer did not just pay weregild.
You know, the way the Muslims allow a criminal to be "forgiven", typically provided he makes a suitable payment to the other family, and suffer no punishment.
Could Awlaki have made a suitable payoff and just escaped being outlawed completely?
How much will we charge per terrorist act?
Or perhaps we could just stick with the Constitution, and full trials.
Posted by: Sam at February 07, 2013 03:26 PM (wZIgv)
Posted by: A Guy Can Dream, Can't He? at February 07, 2013 03:28 PM (AVfT8)
Posted by: A Guy Can Dream, Can't He? at February 07, 2013 03:33 PM (AVfT8)
Also a stupid argument. Bail jumpers haven't been convicted at that stage of the process. So they can't get killed by drones in this model. (Tranquilised by drones, perhaps.)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 07, 2013 03:34 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:39 PM (Dnbau)
thunder ---
I never suggested otherwise --- it's your use of it to allow nonjudicial executions that bothers me. It's applicability to the conduct of National armed forces vs others of like kind is unquestioned. Using it as a justification for a head of state to direct the execution of one of his/her citizens is what I have a problem with.
Would you extend the same argument to defend eastern bloc murders of defectors during the Cold War era?
And you still need to answer the separate issue of an International Treaty nullifying the Constitution.
Posted by: Old Bob at February 07, 2013 03:40 PM (i9GsZ)
Posted by: sablegsd at February 07, 2013 03:41 PM (AKS75)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 03:44 PM (Dnbau)
Assasination is against the Laws of War.... and the Geneva Convention.
An unarmed combatant, taken UNDER ARMS, can be shot... but we're taking guys out who are driving down the road, no where near any armed conflicts.
Now, if the Prezzy wants to cap Al Q types? who are Foreigners? thats one thing... but putting a Hit on an American Citizen without due process of Law???
The Constitution is a document which says what the Government can do, to WE, the Citizens.... it prohibits the Government from a Lot of Actions.... Like... taking your life without due process of law... it does not matter if you are in another country or not, you are still a citizen, and this document should stop the US Government from taking your life on a whim....
Easy solution for me... Try them in abscentia for Treason... take their Citizenship... then kill them..... ie.... follow our OWN Rules... but we don't have a King who can kill people at will.... or at least, we're not supposed to.
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 07, 2013 03:47 PM (lZBBB)
when you leave the US. For instance what is free speech here, can be sedition on foreign soil. If you want your full cadre of rights don't leave the US.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 07, 2013 07:11 PM (0q2P7)
The US Constitution says what the US Government may do to you.... ie... even if you are foreign soil, the US cannot convict you of some speach violation... it does not forbid OTHER governments from doing so however....
Which is the question here. Does a US Citizen loose his Constitutional protections FROM the US Government, because he is on foreign soil?
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 07, 2013 03:56 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 07:00 PM (Dnbau)
Not real familiar with the idea of an Amendment to the Constitution and what it does are you? The Fifth Amendment trumps previous sections of the Constitution - so what ever they allowed are changed by the existence of the Fifth and its requirements.
Posted by: An Observation at February 07, 2013 03:59 PM (ylhEn)
thunder -
So if I understand you; because Art. VI incorporates the treaty it is therefor consitutional. Let me expand on that with a hypothetical:
Obama et al enter into a treaty (approved by Senate) with the EU that outlaws firearms, requires all publications to receive prior approval by an appointed body, and declares the Euro to be the only lawful currency. What parts of this would you consider binding on the USA and it's citizenry?
Posted by: Old Bob at February 07, 2013 04:04 PM (i9GsZ)
Posted by: Thunderb at February 07, 2013 04:57 PM (Dnbau)
No Miranda rights? No lawyer?
Never happen. We are too civilized for that. Meanwhile, google Kristian Menchaca to see what the other side does.
I'm untroubled by drone attacks on enemy combatants. I'm quite troubled that it is not the military selecting the targets. Too LBJ-ish for my liking.
Posted by: MarkD at February 07, 2013 05:03 PM (+xUiW)
thunder -
Dude ... not looking to flame ... but iffen' you want - I'll match my JD and actual pre-law combat experience with a JAG REMF anytime.
What I would like, however, is a rational answer to politely phrased questions. S'pose that's at all likely?
Posted by: Old Bob at February 07, 2013 05:11 PM (i9GsZ)
Posted by: SGT Dan's Cat at February 07, 2013 05:36 PM (nranl)
Posted by: Old Bob at February 07, 2013 05:55 PM (i9GsZ)
If we have PUBLICLY indicted, made an attempt to notify- news releases, for example-
I do not lose sleep over whacking an American citizen in a drone strike OVERSEAS, if it is a crime worthy of dead or alive circumstances.
If a citizen of this (formerly?)fine country wants to avail themselves of our legal systems and their rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, come home and face justice, or turn yourself in at the closest embassy or consulate.
As long as the persons targeted have been publicly declared and are fugitives overseas, I do not have a problem with it.
Posted by: Gerry Owen at February 07, 2013 06:19 PM (4ABat)
Posted by: thunderb at February 07, 2013 06:26 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Baldy at February 07, 2013 06:39 PM (opS9C)
Outlawry is still on the books in Britain, and could be invoked for criminal cases, actually. It was not outlawed with the Magna Carta, just became subject to due process of law. They don't use it anymore, but it still exists for criminal offenses. The main reason they stopped using it was because catching fugitives got easier as the world got more populated and modern communication came along, and the concept of extradition treaties.
In fact, the Brits wanted to use it to handle the Nazi war criminals after WWII. Declare them to be outlaws and thus anyone could kill them. But we (and the Russians) objected to it and thus Nuremburg was set up.
We never had anything like this over here, but the concept boils down to this: Someone refuses to show up for a criminal charge and cannot be apprehended. Via judicial procedure, the court declared that person to be an outlaw. He thus forfeits all rights and legal protections, and all property is forfeit to the Crown (state). He can be killed on sight by anyone.
Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at February 07, 2013 07:26 PM (VVB18)
Let me see - a US citizen goes overseas to join a foreign army waging war on the US and the US government kills him without a trial.
Nope - I see no problem with that at all. He made his choice, if he wanted the protections of civilization and the law then he should have acted otherwise. I do not see why we are obligated to assist our enemies with the cutting of our throats.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - It's Not Me, Babe at February 08, 2013 06:07 AM (hLRSq)
269 Assasination is against the Laws of War.... and the Geneva Convention.
Admiral Yamamoto is unavailable for comment.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - It's Not Me, Babe at February 08, 2013 06:14 AM (hLRSq)
264 "Also a stupid argument. Bail jumpers haven't been convicted at that stage of the process. So they can't get killed by drones in this model. (Tranquilised by drones, perhaps.)"
If you bothered to read the wikipedia entry which Ace used as a reference, you will note that it says anyone fleeing justice or failing to show for trial were automatically outlawed.
You can call it a slippery slope argument if you like, but it is far from stupid to cite the history of the principal looking to be implemented when considering its effects.
Not only could they get killed by drones in this model, they could get killed by anyone who keeps up to date on the wanted posters.
Posted by: Sam at February 08, 2013 04:52 PM (wZIgv)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2847 seconds, 413 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: confessions of a beachcomber at February 07, 2013 02:22 PM (LpQbZ)