Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens�

[TMF]

I even agree with you, TMF, but Napolitano is arguably credible.

I was referring specifically to the OP's article posted. Napolitano is talking about something different. I disagree with his assessment of targeting enemy militants abroad. Joining a foreign military that is at war with the US makes you a soldier of that military.

BTW, this is probably the only time I have disagreed with an opinion of Napolitano. I understand what he is saying about due process, but being in a foreign military is a different animal. To put this in perspective, we do not have "shoot to kill" orders on our soil for enemy combatants. That is to say, on our soil a cop can't identify a foreign soldier and just shoot him in the face. However, in combat that is a different story. We can shoot an enemy combatant while he is unarmed and taking a dump and it is still legal. Edited January 26, 2013 by TMF

[East_TN_Patriot]

Ah, just start calling it tinfoil. It always happens.

OK, I'll do it.  What we are discussing is a legitimate issue that people like Alex Jones turn into a tinfoil hat conspiracy.  Isn't anyone even slightly skeptical that of all the media outlets and media personalities, politicians that support liberty, and others speaking out against the government that Alex Jones is the ONLY one who ever gets info from all of these unnamed sources with seemingly classified insider information?    Again, the argument is that there is absolutely nobody in the federal government or military beyond this one "unnamed source" that believes in the rights of Americans and refuses to blow the whistle.  Not one of these dismissed officers has sounded the alarm and not one has had a change of heart.  Even Ron Paul is in on the conspiracy or somehow simply doesn't know what's going on.  It's such a well kept secret that Wikileaks didn't find anything on it, and groups like Anonymous haven't happened across any evidence of this seemingly widespread federal policy.

Someone else mentioned Katrina.  The weapons confiscations during Katrina is a far cry from the insinuation that federal government is preparing to join forces with some secret cabal (UN, NWO, FEMA, communists, etc.) to take over the nation.  By wasting time and energy on these absurd conspiracy claims, we are not addressing the legitimate problems and questions that are right in front of our faces. 

Let's take Katrina for instance.  Did the circumstances following Katrina justify confiscation of weapons from law-abiding gun owners?  I don't think so, and I find that precedent troubling.  But let's argue that point on the merits of the incident alone recognizing that it could lead to a slippery-slope situation without jumping off the cliff into Alex Jones land.  Convincing members of the National Guard to collect weapons from people following a natural disaster and absolute social chaos is a much easier sell for most Americans than telling them to launch armed attacks on Americans who voice political dissent.  Again, do you ACTUALLY believe that there isn't a single person in our military or government with a conscience or love for individual liberty or that all of the military members who voted against Obama will be so easily convinced that killing American protesters is OK? 

Also, I agree that efforts to portray Tea Party members and anti-federalists as potentially domestic terrorists is very troubling.  However, when we see people like Alex Jones and his followers going out on a ledge with their loony conspiratorial rhetoric and people getting on the Internet openly advocating armed revolution or discussing when Americans should take up arms against the government (including on TGO from time-to-time), we are making the government's argument for them.  By playing into the Alex Jones trap, people may find themselves getting what they ask for.  That is the real danger here.

Incidentally, I recently spoke with a high-ranking member of the Department of Justice who agreed to talk on promise of anonymity that the Obama administration is actually publicly supporting gun control efforts, but is secretly trying to derail it behind the scenes in order to maintain support of the NRA so that they can get Joe Biden elected to the presidency in 2016.  Biden plans to repeal all gun legislation and there is talk of issuing all members of the unorganized militia (as defined in the Dick Act) M-4 rifles and ammo in order to protect the nation from a possible terrorist attack or invasion by the Chinese.  The Obama administration is trying to keep this all quiet so the Chinese and the Russians won't catch wind of it.  All of this gun control rhetoric is a massive smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the government.

Edited January 26, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[TMF]

Engaging someone on the field of battle is different than a targeted assassination by drone strike. Awlaki got what he had coming to him, but that doesn't mean that the president had the right to order it done in the manner in which he did. The most salient point being that there is no legal difference in the president ordering the targeted killing of a US citizen in Yemen or Ypslanti, MI.

Chuck, you served in the military before and I'll make the assumption you have combat experience since we've been in the fight for 12 years. You should know there is a difference between an assassination and kinetic targeting. We do it all the time, from HVIs like Zarqawi down to IED manufacturers. I saw a JDAM mission during the surge get approved on a bed down location for low level hole diggers, just to send a message that we will absolutely kill the lowest level guys and make no attempt to capture.

There is a difference between ROE and the law of land warfare. The enemy doesn't have to be armed to kill, and you have zero obligation to capture him. The only time it is illegal to kill is when it is obvious the enemy is trying to surrender.

Al Qaeda is a foreign military. There is no way around that. They attacked the highest headquarters of our military and blew up two of the largest buildings in our country. We declared war on the Spanish once over a boat that they didn't even blow up! The point I'm making is that when an American citizen joins a foreign military that we are at war with, we can kill them. We did it in WWII to Americans who joined the German army and Jap army. What is different now? Edited January 26, 2013 by TMF

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Incidentally, I recently spoke with a high-ranking member of the Department of Justice who agreed to talk on promise of anonymity...".

How's that any different from what another said on a website? Otherwise, I agree with you, ET. :D

[TMF]

[quote name="6.8 AR" post="896687" timestamp="1359223293"]"Incidentally, I recently spoke with a high-ranking member of the Department of Justice who agreed to talk on promise of anonymity...". How's that any different from what another said on a website? Otherwise, I agree with you, ET. :D[/quote] I think he just got you good, or else you just doubled down on the parody.

[East_TN_Patriot]

"Incidentally, I recently spoke with a high-ranking member of the Department of Justice who agreed to talk on promise of anonymity...".

How's that any different from what another said on a website? Otherwise, I agree with you, ET. :D

Now prove whether that conversation ever actually took place and if it did, what was actually said. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He probably did. :D

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I can't prove either. You know that. But, usually I give you a smithering of credibility. :D

[Guest The Dude]

OK, I'll do it.  What we are discussing is a legitimate issue that people like Alex Jones turn into a tinfoil hat conspiracy.  Isn't anyone even slightly skeptical that of all the media outlets and media personalities, politicians that support liberty, and others speaking out against the government that Alex Jones is the ONLY one who ever gets info from all of these unnamed sources with seemingly classified insider information?    Again, the argument is that there is absolutely nobody in the federal government or military beyond this one "unnamed source" that believes in the rights of Americans and refuses to blow the whistle.  Not one of these dismissed officers has sounded the alarm and not one has had a change of heart.  Even Ron Paul is in on the conspiracy or somehow simply doesn't know what's going on.  It's such a well kept secret that Wikileaks didn't find anything on it, and groups like Anonymous haven't happened across any evidence of this seemingly widespread federal policy.

Someone else mentioned Katrina.  The weapons confiscations during Katrina is a far cry from the insinuation that federal government is preparing to join forces with some secret cabal (UN, NWO, FEMA, communists, etc.) to take over the nation.  By wasting time and energy on these absurd conspiracy claims, we are not addressing the legitimate problems and questions that are right in front of our faces. 

Let's take Katrina for instance.  Did the circumstances following Katrina justify confiscation of weapons from law-abiding gun owners?  I don't think so, and I find that precedent troubling.  But let's argue that point on the merits of the incident alone recognizing that it could lead to a slippery-slope situation without jumping off the cliff into Alex Jones land.  Convincing members of the National Guard to collect weapons from people following a natural disaster and absolute social chaos is a much easier sell for most Americans than telling them to launch armed attacks on Americans who voice political dissent.  Again, do you ACTUALLY believe that there isn't a single person in our military or government with a conscience or love for individual liberty or that all of the military members who voted against Obama will be so easily convinced that killing American protesters is OK? 

Also, I agree that efforts to portray Tea Party members and anti-federalists as potentially domestic terrorists is very troubling.  However, when we see people like Alex Jones and his followers going out on a ledge with their loony conspiratorial rhetoric and people getting on the Internet openly advocating armed revolution or discussing when Americans should take up arms against the government (including on TGO from time-to-time), we are making the government's argument for them.  By playing into the Alex Jones trap, people may find themselves getting what they ask for.  That is the real danger here.

Incidentally, I recently spoke with a high-ranking member of the Department of Justice who agreed to talk on promise of anonymity that the Obama administration is actually publicly supporting gun control efforts, but is secretly trying to derail it behind the scenes in order to maintain support of the NRA so that they can get Joe Biden elected to the presidency in 2016.  Biden plans to repeal all gun legislation and there is talk of issuing all members of the unorganized militia (as defined in the Dick Act) M-4 rifles and ammo in order to protect the nation from a possible terrorist attack or invasion by the Chinese.  The Obama administration is trying to keep this all quiet so the Chinese and the Russians won't catch wind of it.  All of this gun control rhetoric is a massive smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the government.

I brought up Katrina, and did so for a reason. Prior to that incident, most people would have found it insane that the military would go door to door collecting guns and denying the people a right to common defense of their property and themselves, especially when a disaster strikes and we need them guns most. We seen it happen. I see many people saying the same thing about this potential issue.

 

And you bring up the UN. Oddly enough, Panetta openly tells congress that this administration doesnt need congressional approval for military intervention, and that they seek out the approval of the UN and NATO. Thats not a conspiracy or an insinuation. Heres the video for all you non believers in this regard.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzZAOQnYFI

 

And you dont have to think Alex Jones is the only one covering this. I could care less what people think of him, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzT6X3_Bg9o&feature=player_embedded

 

I do agree with you on several points though.

Edited January 27, 2013 by The Dude

[mcurrier]

0bama Tailoring Military Leaderhip to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/59281-what-does-the-military-feel-about-the-erosion-of-our-2a-right/#entry894026

[Randall53]

Personally, I think both videos are very revealing. The one about Panetta speaks for itself.  The other one seemed to have information that does ring a familiar bell much of the time.  The change, or coming out, of Obama does have substance with me. The mainstream media has totally ignored his past and his history and actually fought hard to keep things out of the public eye. I don't mean as in the birth certificate fiasco, but in covering up his origins that are really not American. They have ignored his close relationships with Socialists and his infatuation with Socialism, it's movement here in America and Marxist Socialism in particular. They have covered up or quickly quelled many believable stories about his youth in America and belittled any kind of negative news or reports about him and most certainly do appear to be a very strong arm of his political machine. They fiercely magnify any perceived sins of the right, yet with the same ferocity magnify the image of Obama.

 

I have also wondered a lot in the past few years about how we would ever be able to pay China back for the loans. I would not be surprised at all to learn that Obama has worked purposely to put us in the position to be forced to honor his supposed promises to China of huge chunks of the wealth of our countries raw resources to them. This could well be his way of "paying America back" since he feels America committed similar sins to his fathers homeland and much of the worlds third world countries by taking the raw resources, refining them and selling them back to them at huge profits.  His background is not an American background at all. To a Socialist, Capitalism is seen as the largest enemy of the advancement of smaller countries. All of these feelings could very well be deeply instilled in Obama and could be the source for Michelle Obama's statements of hating America as they would most likely rub off on her.

 

Lastly, I'm sure there were many people in Germany and in Cuba that laughed at anyone that cautioned the direction of these countries actions right up until they found themselves in a dictatorship. But, then it was too late to do anything about it.

 

Food for thought anyway.....don't you think?

[Chucktshoes]

Chuck, you served in the military before and I'll make the assumption you have combat experience since we've been in the fight for 12 years. You should know there is a difference between an assassination and kinetic targeting. We do it all the time, from HVIs like Zarqawi down to IED manufacturers. I saw a JDAM mission during the surge get approved on a bed down location for low level hole diggers, just to send a message that we will absolutely kill the lowest level guys and make no attempt to capture.
There is a difference between ROE and the law of land warfare. The enemy doesn't have to be armed to kill, and you have zero obligation to capture him. The only time it is illegal to kill is when it is obvious the enemy is trying to surrender.
Al Qaeda is a foreign military. There is no way around that. They attacked the highest headquarters of our military and blew up two of the largest buildings in our country. We declared war on the Spanish once over a boat that they didn't even blow up! The point I'm making is that when an American citizen joins a foreign military that we are at war with, we can kill them. We did it in WWII to Americans who joined the German army and Jap army. What is different now?

My service began and ended during the Clinton administration, so my deployment to Kuwait was a far milder affair than the folks in the last dozen years.

Call it whatever you want. When the President has a list of targets that he personally OK's, it is an assassination. Especially when those killings take place in a location in which we are not actively engaged in combat. When that target is a US citizen, then there is responsibility on the government's behalf to make the reasoning for that decision crystal clear to the the American People. Holder's assertion that "due process does not mean due judicial process" is a load of horseshit and does not even come close to a reasonable justification.

As far as AQ being a foreign military, which affiliate of AQ are we talking about? AQAP? AQ in Iraq? Al Shabaab? Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb? Which country do they represent?


I don't wholly disagree with your position. However, above any political or military goal, I value the civil liberties of American citizens. I was a vocal critic of the Patriot Act from the beginning and I find the thought that the President can order that an American citizen be specifically and directly targeted for death most especially odious. To kill an American engaged in combat against American forces on the field of battle (like Lindh would have been if he had died) is one thing. To target an American citizen with a drone strike in a country in which we do not have troops and have not declared war against is another matter entirely.

[JayC]

Except Awlaki wasn't in a foreign military, wasn't on a battlefield, and wasn't carrying weapons and shooting at American soldiers.

 

It's perfectly legal for American servicemen to defend themselves from an armed attacker, or even to engage armed individuals on the battlefield that happen to be US citizens.  Under the rules of war, it's perfectly legal to kill civilians when targeting a military target or installation.  It is NOT lawful to intentionally target foreign civilians, let alone US citizens.

 

But, Awlaki wasn't any of the above, he was 1,000's of miles from any battlefield, driving in a vehicle in the middle of a country that is not at war.  The Internet videos you'll bring up if you listen to them, are sermons teaching his faith and what he believes were instructions from his god.  None of that could have been used as the basis for a criminal charge here in the US.  From all outward appearances he appeared to be a preacher providing religious advice to people who were taking up arms against the US, which *might* have been criminal under US law.

 

Now as for AQAP, it's not Al-Qaeda anymore than your kids little league team named the Cubs is the same thing as the real Cubs in Chicago.  AQAP didn't exist in 2001, didn't get money or support from Al-Qaeda, had it's own leadership, etc.  Does that mean AQAP were a bunch of good guys?  No, but there is some question as to under what legal authority the President is targeting members of AQAP.  At first AQAP's only stated goals were to overthrow the Saudi government, and their operational activities through most of 2009 appear to bear this out.  It wasn't until AFTER we started dropping bombs on them that they started to target us.

 

But, lets return to Awlaki, the DOJ says he was involved in operational planning of terrorist attacks.  The same DOJ who in the same month sat before congress and under oath told them there had been no "gun walking" to Mexico.  But lets go on, Awlaki was never charged with a crime, no warrant was ever issued for his arrest, we didn't even ask Yemen's government to arrest him.  Yet he is some mastermind guilty enough that the President of the United State had to order him executed while providing the American people no proof of his 'operational' activities. 

 

Awlaki may very well be a bad guy, and should have been tried, convicted, and put to death for his crimes against his own country.  I'm not going to stand up here and claim he's a saint, only that the legal justification for killing him is suspect at best.  Here we are 2 years after his killing and the President won't even release the legal justification it uses to determine who is placed on the 'kill' list.  Nor will the administration commit to not using the practice inside the borders of the United States.

 

Think about that for a minute, there is a 'legal document' out there that says if you do, X, Y, or Z the government without even charging you with a crime, or issuing a search warrant can kill you anywhere in the world, even inside the United States of America.  And the government won't even tell us what X, Y or Z is.

 

Lets pretend that the government got it right in the case of Awlaki Sr.  Much less known was the killing of his son two weeks after his fathers death.  'Unnamed' sources in the current administration announced his killing, and at the time described his as a 'military-aged male' of 21 years old, therefore justifying the killing of his son.  But, it appears his son wasn't 21, but had just turned 16 a month before and was in the company of his 17 year old cousin (who was also killed).    Now, the administration attempts to confuse the American people by saying that the boy was killed in the same 'series' of strikes that killed Ibrahim al-Banna, but there were 3 different drone strikes on Oct. 14th, 2011, the one that killed Ibrahim al-Banna was miles away from the one which killed Alwaki Jr.  The strike that killed him targeted a group of teenagers around a campfire on the side of a road.

 

So explain to me exactly how targeting a 16 year old kid, who couldn't have had any operational control over any terrorist group, unarmed sitting around a campfire is justified?

 

Awlaki was in a foreign military which had declared war on our government. Had he joined the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and we went to war with Iran, would we be careful not to engage the unit he was serving in simply because he is an American? No.

We shot John Walker Lindh on the battlefield in Afghanistan when he was a member of the Taliban. We would have killed him had he not surrendered before we had the chance. He got his due process. Had he not survived the gunshot wound his rights would not have been violated.

Edited January 27, 2013 by JayC

[TMF]

Except Awlaki wasn't in a foreign military, wasn't on a battlefield, and wasn't carrying weapons and shooting at American soldiers.

Al Qaeda meets all the criteria of a foreign military. If blowing up the two biggest buildings in New York and flying a missile into our defense headquarters aren't acts of war, I don't know what is. As for not presently shooting at Americans or being armed, so what? I've shot an unarmed guy before. Totally legit shoot too. I could have shot him if he was taking a dump. I don't understand why folks think you can only shoot militants if they are actively engaged in a gunfight. That isn't how war works folks. Edited January 27, 2013 by TMF

[DaveTN]

Awlaki may very well be a bad guy, and should have been tried, convicted, and put to death for his crimes against his own country.  I'm not going to stand up here and claim he's a saint, only that the legal justification for killing him is suspect at best.

This isn’t his country. And he was tried convicted and put to death; same as any other enemy combatant.

 
He had every opportunity to surrender and have a trial if he was innocent. It wasn’t like it was some secret operation to kill him. He was targeted openly for the whole world to see. Any time he wanted to stop it all he had to do was pick up the phone.

[TMF]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="897156" timestamp="1359268725"] As far as AQ being a foreign military, which affiliate of AQ are we talking about? AQAP? AQ in Iraq? Al Shabaab? Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb? Which country do they represent? I don't wholly disagree with your position. However, above any political or military goal, I value the civil liberties of American citizens. I was a vocal critic of the Patriot Act from the beginning and I find the thought that the President can order that an American citizen be specifically and directly targeted for death most especially odious. To kill an American engaged in combat against American forces on the field of battle (like Lindh would have been if he had died) is one thing. To target an American citizen with a drone strike in a country in which we do not have troops and have not declared war against is another matter entirely.[/quote] This is the logical line in determining if he was a legitimate military target: 1. Is Al Qaeda (AP) a foreign military? I believe yes. We could lay out all the things that make something a military, and AQ would meet those criteria. Not having a central government means nothing. Our military has fought countless of military organizations throughout its history which didn't have a legitimate country or government to answer to. I don't see how things are any different now than what they used to be in terms of what we determine is a military organization. 2. Was Awlaki a member of that organization? Yes. This makes him just as legitimate to target as any other member of that organization. We could drop a hellfire on the chia boy and the guy doing maintenance on their vehicles and they would both be legitimate targets. I don't see how anyone could debate that a soldier in a military we are at war with MUST be shooting at us to kill him. That is not true, has never been true and never will be true. 3. Are we at at with Al Qaeda? Yes. Refer to my earlier posts on what is an act of war. Not only have they declared war on us, they attacked us on our soil. Separating the different Al Qaeda affiliated groups as being autonomous is like saying we could have fought the Germans in WWII and left the Italians alone. There is still still communication and structure between the various Al Qaeda affiliated groups. Therefore we must fight them all. I also value civil liberties, but I don't think civil liberties come into play when an American joins a military we are fighting. We are fighting AQAP. Just because we aren't deploying several brigades to occupy another country doesn't mean squat. We are still fighting that military there and they continue to try and attack us on our own soil. There have been plenty of foiled plots that have come out of AQAP since September 11th.

[mav]

I honestly don't know why anyone would be surprised by this.  This has happened before in this country.  In conjunction with the police, the military was used against the Bonus Army in 1932 led by none other than MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton.

 

The military will never be used against citizens of this country.  Please.

[JayC]

Alwaki was never a member of Al Qaeda, as I explained in the post above.  He was 'at best' a member of AQAP (again the administration has provided no proof of his membership in AQAP).  AQAP wasn't even formed in 2001 when the attacks happened on the WTC and the Pentagon.

 

AQAP's state goal was to overthrow the Saudi government, and didn't start targeting the United States until AFTER we started bombing them.  And Alwaki's direct ties to helping them carry out those attacks as a stretch at best.

 

I never said that soldiers could not target valid military targets/enemy combatants and kill civilians in the process, only that it's unlawful to intentionally target civilians.  And our ROE has never allowed that, as it would be a war crime (or at least that is what they taught me) back in the 90's.

 

And I can provide you the example my instructor at Maxwell provided us, you may target enemy combatants at anytime you can find them, but you may not target non-combatants of the opposing force.  For example an unarmed medic or a medical tent is NOT to be intentionally targeted at anytime on a battlefield, as the intentional targeting would be a war crime.  Chaplains fall under the same exception.  For that reason you'll never see a chaplain in the US military ever touch a weapon while in uniform.  

 

So Alwaki was an enemy combatant?  Where is the proof? There is no public documentation showing he provided anything other than religious advice to members of an organization who were carrying out attacks on the United States.  By the way, nobody in the current Administration has stated that they believed Alwaki was an enemy combatant, and they still haven't released the document that outlines how they determine who is or isn't an enemy combatant. 

 

But, lets pretend for a second you're right, Alwaki was an enemy combatant.  How on earth was his 16 year old son an enemy combatant sitting around a campfire 1,000's of miles away from any battlefield?  What about the other American's that have been targeted and killed by our drone program?

 

The bottom line is this...  The President has a 'secret document' that outlines when US citizens can be killed without being charged with a crime, or an arrest warrant issued for them.  We're not talking about the document that provides evidence against Alwaki (they won't release that either), but the document that spells out the conditions you can be killed far away from any battlefield by our military.  And, the current administration won't even give us the simple re-assurance that they will not use this new found 'power' on American soil.

 

Tell me exactly how that jives with your understanding of the laws of war and our Constitution?

 

Al Qaeda meets all the criteria of a foreign military. If blowing up the two biggest buildings in New York and flying a missile into our defense headquarters aren't acts of war, I don't know what is. As for not presently shooting at Americans or being armed, so what? I've shot an unarmed guy before. Totally legit shoot to. I could have shot him if he was taking a dump. I don't understand why folks think you can only shoot militants if they are actively engaged in a gunfight. That isn't how war works folks.

 

 

[JayC]

Dave,

 

How exactly did he have every opportunity to surrender?

 

He was never charged with a crime.

 

There was never an arrest warrant issued for him.

 

It was some secret operation to kill him, his family on his behalf went to court to try and get an injunction to prevent the government from killing him.  In those proceeding the government would not even admit he was on a list to be killed or captured, and the judge dismissed the suit for lack of legal standing.

 

It wasn't until AFTER he was killed did the administration even admit on the record he was being targeted.

 

And even if all of that is true, what about his son being killed two weeks later in a separate strike?  While there was a lot of 'unnamed sources' claiming Alwaki Sr was being targeted, his son was never named, and there seems to be no proof he was ever involved in AQAP, how do we justify the killing of a 16 year old?

 

This isn’t his country. And he was tried convicted and put to death; same as any other enemy combatant.

 
He had every opportunity to surrender and have a trial if he was innocent. It wasn’t like it was some secret operation to kill him. He was targeted openly for the whole world to see. Any time he wanted to stop it all he had to do was pick up the phone.

Edited January 27, 2013 by JayC

[TMF]

[quote name="JayC" post="897336" timestamp="1359302566"]Alwaki was never a member of Al Qaeda, as I explained in the post above.  He was 'at best' a member of AQAP (again the administration has provided no proof of his membership in AQAP).  AQAP wasn't even formed in 2001 when the attacks happened on the WTC and the Pentagon.   AQAP's state goal was to overthrow the Saudi government, and didn't start targeting the United States until AFTER we started bombing them.  And Alwaki's direct ties to helping them carry out those attacks as a stretch at best.   I never said that soldiers could not target valid military targets/enemy combatants and kill civilians in the process, only that it's unlawful to intentionally target civilians.  And our ROE has never allowed that, as it would be a war crime (or at least that is what they taught me) back in the 90's.   And I can provide you the example my instructor at Maxwell provided us, you may target enemy combatants at anytime you can find them, but you may not target non-combatants of the opposing force.  For example an unarmed medic or a medical tent is NOT to be intentionally targeted at anytime on a battlefield, as the intentional targeting would be a war crime.  Chaplains fall under the same exception.  For that reason you'll never see a chaplain in the US military ever touch a weapon while in uniform.     [/quote] AQAP has attempted several attacks against us since they came into being. Their organization is at war with us so we are at war with them. They are absolutely legitimate to target. That is not even in dispute here. Medics and chaplains aside, everyone else is fair game. Whether that enemy is a machine gunner or a cook, it doesn't matter. You can shoot them dead at any time so long as they're not surrendering. You can even shoot wounded enemy so long as you have not secured them yet. So the only thing left to dispute is whether or not Awlaki was a member of that organization. I understand why that is such a hot subject, since the evidence of his membership is sensitive data, and so that information is not shared with the public. I don't know how to reconcile that. I get how that is an issue of precedent, but I'd bet my whole badass gun collection that he was a member. I'm sure he admits to it at some point in his YouTube videos. If not then I would agree that the government should release information which condemns him as a member of a foreign military.

[TMF]

t How on earth was his 16 year old son an enemy combatant sitting around a campfire 1,000's of miles away from any battlefield? What about the other American's that have been targeted and killed by our drone program?

Refresh my memory, who was his son with when he got a hellfire dropped on him?

I'll give you a hint, it was known AQAP members. Once again, I don't see how you can argue that we must be engaged in a firefight with the enemy to drop a bomb on them. We bomb enemies all over Afghanistan and Pakistan and we are not at war with either country, which are just killing the folks that are at war with us. If we had done this a little more in the 90s, September 11th never would have happened. How many times do we have to allow these monkeys to carry out attacks on us before we grasp the very basic concept that there are people in this world that wake up everyday and work on plans to attack our country? Why do we think these people should not be killed before they succeed? Edited January 27, 2013 by TMF

[DaveTN]

Dave,
 
How exactly did he have every opportunity to surrender?
 
He was never charged with a crime.
 
There was never an arrest warrant issued for him.
 
It was some secret operation to kill him, his family on his behalf went to court to try and get an injunction to prevent the government from killing him.  In those proceeding the government would not even admit he was on a list to be killed or captured, and the judge dismissed the suit for lack of legal standing.
 
It wasn't until AFTER he was killed did the administration even admit on the record he was being targeted.
 
And even if all of that is true, what about his son being killed two weeks later in a separate strike?  While there was a lot of 'unnamed sources' claiming Alwaki Sr was being targeted, his son was never named, and there seems to be no proof he was ever involved in AQAP, how do we justify the killing of a 16 year old?

 

US District Judge John Bates dismissed a lawsuit filed by the father of Anwar al-Awlaki, a dual US-Yemen citizen, who is reportedly on a US “kill list” of terrorism suspects. His ruling clears the way for the Obama administration to conduct the targeted killing – without judicial oversight.

His Father knew it, and he went to court to try to stop it. You think his Father knew something he didn’t?
You can’t make a reasonable, legal, ethical or moral argument against targeting this murderer and enemy combatant. He had every opportunity to surrender.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Refresh my memory, who was his son with when he got a hellfire dropped on him?

I'll give you a hint, it was known AQAP members. Once again, I don't see how you can argue that we must be engaged in a firefight with the enemy to drop a bomb on them. We bomb enemies all over Afghanistan and Pakistan and we are not at war with either country, which are just killing the folks that are at war with us. If we had done this a little more in the 90s, September 11th never would have happened. How many times do we have to allow these monkeys to carry out attacks on us before we grasp the very basic concept that there are people in this world that wake up everyday and work on plans to attack our country? Why do we think these people should not be killed before they succeed?

 

I don't pretend knowledge or expertise. In my ignorance I wonder if the war on terror has some "forest versus trees" perceptual difficulties which might share properties with such as the cold war, vietnam war, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc.

 

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

 

This first reason article, though not explicitly drawing parallels to the war on guns, brings up the extraordinarily low USA body count from terrorism, compared to the draconian expenditure in lives and wealth in preventing deaths from terrorism. If it only saves one life reasoning perhaps? If you spent a couple of trillion bucks over 14 american lives lost to terrorism since 9/11, you spent approx $142.9 billion per life lost. Even with a body count of 10,000 it would work out to $200 million per life lost.

 

People mock the idea of banning guns because, for instance more people die of drowning than from gun violence. The expense and aggravation of banning guns is an inappropriately expensive and draconian method of saving so few lives. Why can't you use the same logic to ridicule the "expensive cadillac budget" approach to fighting a war on terror? It may well be an entirely different kettle of worms, or perhaps an entirely different can of fish. Or maybe it is the same-old-same-old.

 

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/21/americas-drone-terrorism

 

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/24/its-not-a-kill-list-its-a-disposition-ma

 

These two articles are interesting reads but I can't say I entirely agree or disagree. It is troubling territory.

 

Hatfields versus McCoys. Montagues versus Capulets. Irish versus Irish. Wiping out near-stone-age savages with advanced robotic weapons is no way to make friends among the savages. Just keep the feud going for another few generations? On the other hand, if stone-age savages must be wiped out, I'd rather not kill any of our people in the process so robotic weapons makes sense from that standpoint. On the gripping hand, after you wipe out enough stone age ferriners with the push of a button it will surely breed a certain amount of desensitization, and after awhile it might seem quite appropriate to deal the same way with ignorant redneck savages in western Pennsylvania or Polk County?

 

For grins, shades of vietnam era dialogue, google "How many children has Obama killed?"

[Guest semiautots]

There were actually 2 Americans killed in that drone strike.  The other was a web-site designer that was sympathetic to Islam.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/

[TMF]

This first reason article, though not explicitly drawing parallels to the war on guns, brings up the extraordinarily low USA body count from terrorism, compared to the draconian expenditure in lives and wealth in preventing deaths from terrorism. If it only saves one life reasoning perhaps? If you spent a couple of trillion bucks over 14 american lives lost to terrorism since 9/11, you spent approx $142.9 billion per life lost. Even with a body count of 10,000 it would work out to $200 million per life lost.

People mock the idea of banning guns because, for instance more people die of drowning than from gun violence. The expense and aggravation of banning guns is an inappropriately expensive and draconian method of saving so few lives. Why can't you use the same logic to ridicule the "expensive cadillac budget" approach to fighting a war on terror? It may well be an entirely different kettle of worms, or perhaps an entirely different can of fish. Or maybe it is the same-old-same-old.

"

This war is to address the intangibles. You can't scientifically measure the damage done when a people are attacked and they do nothing, but damage is done and that nation is perceivably weaker for it. We could have saved a lot of money and lives if we simply ignored the attacks of September 11th and went about our lives. Our enemy would have seen that as capitulation and might have even left us alone, for now. But what does that open us up to? What does that do to the morale of the American people, to be attacked and killed without answering back with greater violence? Our society lived in a constant state of fear in the months following September 11th. How would that have changed if we just did nothing at all?

Very few people are killed by terrorism when you compare it to other homicides, so why are people so scared of it? That is how terrorism works. It isn't about body counts, it's about using fear to cripple your enemy and demoralize his people. That was America post 9/11. We let the enemy change our way of life. We only started to relax our fears when we started shooting people in the face. We should continue to engage the enemy to maintain our way of life. I'll admit, conventional war is expensive and unnecessary. There were better ways to do this. But you have to admit, had we shown just a little bit of balls in the 90s and taken out bin Laden and AQ when we had the chance we wouldn't have spent the past decade spending American money and American lives. That, sir, is tangible. We forget that and bitch and moan about dropping hellfires in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, but if we were doing this back in the 90s we wouldn't be there in the first place. A stitch in time saves nine.... blah blah. Edited January 27, 2013 by TMF