Obama lays out guidelines for drone strikes, Guantanamo

I already made it known as to where I stand on this issue. If JT wants to delete my comment for expressing a POV and wants me to rephrase it, then fine, but I will never follow the liberal way of capitulation. I Don't say people have to believe in what i believe and vice versa. I'm all for peace, but when it comes to terrorists, I see things clearly and in Black and White.i think everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

bass4funk,

I was amazed to read your reply.

You have completely swallowed the propaganda.

Your attitude, my good sir, is little different to a blinkered Koran-thumping Taliban.

Why on Earth, can't you just open your eyes, see what YOU see and make YOUR OWN judgements?

Have you ever heard of the Hutaree milita? They were arrested, and media reports labeled them an extremist, domestic terrorist group. According to some statements above, then they could simply be killed. That is, after all the philosophy being espoused. As long as they're terrorists, they can simply be killed.

Excepting a couple of possession of illegal weapons charges, all charges against them were eventually dropped. Turned out there was no evidence to support the charges. But all this came out because of the court system, which demanded evidence and gives the accused due process rights.

Heres the thing, if someone is a terrorist, I don't have a problem with holding them forever. Charging them with crimes, hell, turning them over to other countries, to face justice where they committed crimes. But simply deciding they are terrorists, and ordering their killing, no. As I said above, assassination, should not ever be the policy of the United States.

If it can be verified that the individual is, in fact, a TERRORIST, then by all means, do whatever you have do in order to extract any important intel that could save lives.

The trouble is, who defines what is terrorism? A judge? A jury of peers? Or some faceless bureaucrat? And does it require presidential authorization to order the murder of this proclaimed terrorist, or can authorization start a little lower? When we do away with due process, anyone can become a terrorist.

What about the guy in England? Obviously a killer, done for political/religious reasons, but a terrorist? If so, then Obama is justified in ordering his execution? This is not a black and white issue. Killing people in a war or detaining prisoners is one thing. Ordering the execution of American citizens, because someone decides they are threats to America, is something very different.

@bertie

But then if your conviction is so shaky, you probably don't have the stomach for it.

I'm completely fine with it and sleep perfectly well at night.

Take a good look at what your country is doing in Guantanamo.

I have and proud of it.

These people have been held without trial for 11 years. They have been tortured in various ways and there have been NO trials. This is no better than Soviet Russia under Stalin.

Yup, that's what you get when you wage a Jihad war against us. That they are still alive personally boggles me, but I do think for THESE people for what they were involved in, they should rot and NEVER get out. As for the alleged torture you and I don't know that and cannot personally verify that or do you have documented info to prove it. Any legal State dept. document? If not, then you are going on pure speculation.

@molenir

Who decides someone is a terrorist? If an American goes to the middle east, hangs around with some bad people, do they automatically become terrorists?

Like, Anwar Al Awlaki, YES

If they make inflammatory comments, do they then become terrorists?

In Anwar Al Awlaki's case, YES

Whats the line? And can the President order the murder of people inside the US as well as outside, simply because they are, according to his definition, terrorists?

If they are deemed a threat to National security or to the American people, then by the order of congress, YES.

You see the problem?

No problem, it's a clear Black and White.

Where is the line, where are the limits?

Bottom line, don't join up with these radical Islamists groups and you never have to worry about being targeted from the government. What's so hard to understand.

@bertie

Someone points a finger, yells "terrorist!" And the guy's hauled off to years of solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc. at Guantanamo.

If it can be verified that the individual is, in fact, a TERRORIST, then by all means, do whatever you have do in order to extract any important intel that could save lives.

Exactly, Molenir.

Someone points a finger, yells "terrorist!" And the guy's hauled off to years of solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc. at Guantanamo.

For civilians, absolutely. Terrorists, NO.

Who decides someone is a terrorist? If an American goes to the middle east, hangs around with some bad people, do they automatically become terrorists? If they make inflammatory comments, do they then become terrorists? Whats the line? And can the President order the murder of people inside the US as well as outside, simply because they are, according to his definition, terrorists? You see the problem? Where is the line, where are the limits?

bass4funk,

Look at the link I gave in my post.

But then if your conviction is so shaky, you probably don't have the stomach for it.

Take a good look at what your country is doing in Guantanamo.

These people have been held without trial for 11 years. They have been tortured in various ways and there have been NO trials. This is no better than Soviet Russia under Stalin.

@bertie

What happened to justice and "innocent until proven guilty"?

For civilians, absolutely. Terrorists, NO.

People have been held without trial and tortured to the point where they would rather starve themselves to death in Guantanamo for 11 years.

That's their own fault for wanting to join a jihad and thinking that attacking the US, they will get away with it and that we'll bow down, grovel and give in to them, sorry. No sympathy here, they should rot IMO!

http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/2013523924640987.html

Oh, now you are quoting Al Jazeera???? ROFL

If North Korea did this it would be condemned.

Sure would. NK is a rouge nation that is not even part of the world, alone, isolated, needs foreign aid and food, ready to attack the South or any country if they have a temper tantrum and can't get what they want to feed their soldiers, Gulags and working concentration camps. Yes, it would be condemned in the strongest terms.

Why is no one silent about the fact that the so called Land of the Free is doing this?

Many people are in agreement, but don't want to be isolated or bear the repercussions, if it were known that many of these countries support Guamtanamo. I know liberals hate to hear that, but yes, there are a bunch of nations that agree with the US on this.

And the right to murder with drones?

That's the NEW Obama policy, because he doesn't want to be like Bush( whatever the hell, that means...) instead of arresting these thugs and properly interrogating them in Guantanamo, worrying about the fallout, because to them, its important that the world likes us, the Obama admin. Decided they would rather step up the drone program. Makes NO sense to me, because instead of detaining and getting the vital info you need to thwart off a possible future attack and to know exactly who the enemy is, Obama decides to obliberate them instead. Personally, I support him in this, but it would be helpful every now and then to snatch some of these thugs and to find out their plans.

This is insanity!

That he wants to close Guantanamo, I definitely think so!

What would have been mind-blowing is Rand Paul using some of his 13 hour filibuster to worry about the effect of drone strikes on non-Americans, considering there have been hundreds more of those. I guess that explains why there are no all day filibusters related to Guantanamo.

What happened to justice and "innocent until proven guilty"?

Let's send the police in to arrest them.

What happened to justice and "innocent until proven guilty"?

People have been held without trial and tortured to the point where they would rather starve themselves to death in Guantanamo for 11 years.

http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/2013523924640987.html

If North Korea did this it would be condemned. Why is no one silent about the fact that the so called Land of the Free is doing this?

And the right to murder with drones?

This is insanity!

" the President should not be able to simply order the murder of someone, by claiming they are a terrorist. Frankly, I'm amazed, that so many people on the left, who howled at Bush for doing similar things, are not speaking up against this. I don't care who the President is, it was wrong under Bush, and its wrong under Obama."

Spot on! This highlights the deep-rooted statist mentality pervasive in current US society. People support or oppose actions of the administration largely along party lines, not according to actual constitutionality nor basic morality.

" For all his faults and failures, President Lyndon Johnson put it correctly: With its assassination program, the CIA was operating a “damned Murder Inc.” Not only does Johnson’s pointed observation observe the true nature of the federal government’s assassination program, it also serves to show that assassination has been an integral part of the U.S. national-security state apparatus since long before the 9/11 attacks...." Even the dirty bird LBJ recognized such power as evil...until he got comfortable using it.

I supported it under Bush and I support it under Obama. I also support the need for regulations to create a clear path as to what can and cannot be done in specific situations. Civilian casualties need to be as close to zero as possible while at the same time not giving terrorist free reign because of which side of the map they are on today.

Terrorists have NO rights, therefore there is NO need to arrest and use tax payer $$ to feed and keep them happy and healthy while they are incarcerated. I rarely agree with Obama and his admin. on anything, but on this issue...100%!

I strongly disagree with this principle. Particularly as it concerns Americans. Targetted assassinations, should not be the policy of the United States. And the President should not be able to simply order the murder of someone, by claiming they are a terrorist. Frankly, I'm amazed, that so many people on the left, who howled at Bush for doing similar things, are not speaking up against this. I don't care who the President is, it was wrong under Bush, and its wrong under Obama.

and must move on from the counter-terrorism policies deployed after the September 11 attacks

Sounds like this clown is STILL trying to blame his problems on his predecessor.

The choice is pretty simple. If you don't want to run the risk of being killed in a drone strike, then don't consort with, or become a terrorist.

Hard to do when the government is pretty random in choosing their targets for these drone strikes. (murder).

The choice is pretty simple. If you don't want to run the risk of being killed in a drone strike, then don't consort with, or become a terrorist.

In other words, we reserve the right to assasinate "enemys" without due legal process as we see fit...

Terrorists have NO rights, therefore there is NO need to arrest and use tax payer $$ to feed and keep them happy and healthy while they are incarcerated. I rarely agree with Obama and his admin. on anything, but on this issue...100%!

However, he said that each “option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice.”

In other words, we reserve the right to assasinate "enemys" without due legal process as we see fit...