Posted on 10/25/2012 7:54:33 PM PDT by opentalk
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list...
The second notable statement concerns the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki..
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.
.. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere... 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
(Excerpt) Read more at m.theatlantic.com ...
‘’I don’t care if that Kraut bastard is a sixteen year old snot-nosed kid in short pants or an eighty-year old syphilitic prick with asthma . If he’s behind four feet of concrete he can still pull the trigger on a machine gun and kill my men’’.— General George S. Patton in response to criticism of American GI’s shooting older and young German soldiers. I think the message is clear . You take up arms against your country at any age and get killed doing it, tough sh!t.
Patton fought a WAR. A war declared by congress. He could have wiped out every man woman an child and it would have been justified by Law.
What we're in is NOT a war. It is a police action or other somesuch nonsense because we NEVER declared WAR. Congress just made a statement of policy (Resolution) and started killing people.
--------
Don't get me wrong. I think the terrorists should be obliterated from the face of the Earth, but WHY should a government that won't follow the Constitution to engage in war worry about a little piddly issue like crapping all over someones right to due process?
Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the “disposition matrix.”
The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.
And you know this from what source? You know that the operator of the drone knew that one of the young men at that fire was an American citizen, and 16 years old? You know that no one else there was targeted? You know that the operators in that area just kill anyone they can, randomly?
Please let us know how you know these things. I would like to have access to such knowledge.
I am not saying that it is impossible. I know that crimes have been committed in the past and will be in the future. I want to know how you know that this is one of them.
Unto the seventh generation. The Kennedys and the Jihadis have a couple of more to go.
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” – Deuteronomy 24:16
Madame, how the followers of the Moon God are dispatched to the fires of Hell concerns me not a wit.
That's nice to know.
I infer it from reports where unanamed Washington sources claimed he was 21 and thus a legitimate target. That was, of course, a lie he was 16 and US citizen.
You know that the operator of the drone knew that one of the young men at that fire was an American citizen, and 16 years old?
The operator of the drone is inconsequential to the killing of a 16 year old American citizen, he was following orders and had no personal knowledge of the targets nor should he. But your question here is simply bs and we both know it.
You know that no one else there was targeted?
I don't care who else was targeted. Neither the POTUS, you or anybody else in government has the power to decide they can kill 16 year old American citizens absent due process and justify it by saying he was not the target.
You know that the operators in that area just kill anyone they can, randomly?
Are you retarded? Operators don't decide who lives and who dies by drone. Obama does. How do I know that? I heard him say it.
You've got things all backwards pal. Neither I nor the family of this kid has to prove he wasn't collateral damage, the government has to prove that he was and that his death was an accident due to incompetence and/or poor intelligence. Obama and you can not just kill American citizens because you don't like them or their views and when American Presidents kill 16 year old American citizens not wanted for anything they damn well need to justify their actions and prove it accidental or be impeached.
jwalsh07 posted:
“You’ve got things all backwards pal. Neither I nor the family of this kid has to prove he wasn’t collateral damage, the government has to prove that he was and that his death was an accident due to incompetence and/or poor intelligence. Obama and you can not just kill American citizens because you don’t like them or their views and when American Presidents kill 16 year old American citizens not wanted for anything they damn well need to justify their actions and prove it accidental or be impeached.”
marktwain replies:
I would certainly like to have the administration explain what the strike was about. If this young man was a target, then it certainly should be justified. I do not trust this administration, but it seems highly unlikely that they would choose to kill a 16 year old American simply because they wanted to. Why would they do it? What is thier rational for killing him? They go to considerable trouble not to upset certain sensibilities.
It certainly seems plausible that he was collateral damage, but he may not have been. This administration is so secretive and arrogant that you could be right. I have not seen any evidence that he was directly targeted.
As for the legality of killing American citizens because they or their views are not liked, I certainly do not know if this 16 year old or his views were liked or not. We do know that he was on enemy territory consorting with enemies of the United States. Americans who war with America can certainly be killed, and warrants are not required beforehand. Just consider Americans who volunteered to fight with Nazi forces, or Americans who fought with the Japanese during WWII. Consider Americans who fought on both sides of the Civil war, or War of Northern agression, if you prefer. Consider Americans who were in Germany or Japan during our bombing of their cities.
You can argue that we are not at war. I say that we are, with a non-state actor of radical Islam. There is even precedent from the early days of the Republic. Thomas Jefferson did not obtain a declaration of war to fight the Barbary pirates, another Islamic group that attacked American citizens.
How dare you. To you the Constitution is a suicide pact that should protect those who take up arms to destroy it.
No, but ignoring is!
It's a legal treaty between the States that delegates authority to the central government....and its authority MUST BE followed, or the entire document is meaningless.
Article I / Section 8 / Clause 11
To declare War.......
NOT 'pass a resolution'
NOT 'proclaim a police action'
declaration
n. 1) any statement made, particularly in writing. 2) a written statement made "under penalty of perjury" and signed by the declarant, which is the modern substitute for the more cumbersome affidavit, which requires swearing to its truth before a notary public.
resolution
n. a determination of policy of a corporation by the vote of its board of directors. Legislative bodies also pass resolutions, but they are often statements of policy, belief or appreciation, and not always enactment of statutes or ordinances.
-----------
The Constitution is full of LEGAL terms that the Founders intended to have REAL, LEGAL meaning. Are you saying the federal government is above the Law?
One thing I want to ask those who consider Al-Walaki a citizen. You do realize this means you accept birth right citizenships for non-citizens who just happen to come into the world because their non-citizens parents were visting!
This is an issue of dubious constitutionality, which as I understand it has never been properly tested in court.
If this stands this means that illegal immigrants who cross the border to drop a baby (and take advantage of generous medical welfare benefits!)to create a US citizen. Also note there is a lively trade in pregancy vacations for wealthy foreigners. They come here have their kid, and among the other maternity presents given them is a US citizenship with a future US passport. None of these people have any intention of being real US citizens, they are simply taking advantage of our laxity in interpreting how citizenship is obtained. Remember Al-Walaki’s parents were here for grad school when he was born. They went back to Somalia, Al-Walaki retunred to live off the fat of the Uncle - Uncle Sam. Again to go to school, I contend he never really intended to be a US citizen.
I fully support legal immigration, people who go to the trouble to do it right and go through the process of being a citizen deserve to be rewarded that distinction. Those who scam the system (yes do so because of our intellectual laziness on this!) don’t!
You misunderstand my views on radical Islam and the war. To be clear I believe that we are at war with radical Islam and that the battlefield is the Earth in it’s entirety. A jihadist comes up my hill with bad intentions he will go back down in a body bag. But that would be an exigent circumstance. A 16 year old strapped with explosives or carrying an AK in Afghanistan, Iraq or the bush of Vietnam is a legitimate target for any grunt.
A 16 year old American citizen is not guilty of the sins of the father in and of itself. This can never be true. This particular kid was on no wanted lists of any kind. And this particular POTUS would have no problem targeting and killing this kid if he saw political advantage to it. But the point here is that no POTUS has the power to target American citizens who are not wanted for anything and when 16 year old citizens are killed by drone an explanation is not optional. It is required.
As far as jihadists in general, my view is simple and antithetetical to Romney. I think we should kill them all but I don’t think we should kill the Constitution collaterally.
How so? I merely pointed out that a government that disregarded the procedures and dictates outlined for it to follow regarding a Declaration of War cannot be expected to regard the due process rights of an individual person as anything important.
-----
This American took up arms with an enemy bent on destroying our country. he got what he deserved.
I never said he didn't.
-----
Have you chastised others on this thread who have the same opinion as myself?
Are we now required to mete our our opinions on a fair and equitable basis in order to redistribute 'chastisement'?
LOL! No, I wasn't chastising anyone, nor picking on you in particular. Your post, however, was a perfect illustration between an actual, Constitutional War that WW II was and the more contemporary 'actions' that have been fought in the last 50 years.
I was also attempting to point out that so many people don't seem to get the total disconnect that a government that shall 'make no law' regarding religion has now 'resolved' to fight a military war against one.
The Founders wrote WHAT they did the WAY they did for a reason, and for all the lip-service given to the Constitution around here, you would thinks more of us would realize what it means.....and how upholding it for everyone else protects each and every one of us.
Madame, Islam has declared war on America and the West. How does one declare war on an amorphous entity that hides among many nations and none? You kill that enemy wherever you find it and whomever practices it. You want to extend Constitutional protections and rights to people bent on destroying them? The Constitution of The United States was written ,and paid in blood by and for Americans, not for everyone in the world and certainly not for a bunch of murderous, 7th. century nihilists bent on dragging the world back to the late Bronze Age. Islam is not a religion . It’s a plan for war. If you’d pay attention to the many who post here, informatively outlining just what ‘’The Religion of Peace’’ is, then you’d understand. You’ve a right to your opinion Madame but I find you to be a painfully sophomoric sot, well meaning but painfully ignorant of the nature of the enemy we face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
