CIA Given Authority To Target And Kill American Terrorists
	found on ABC News written by MAYORBOB, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 3 Dec 5:46pm
		"If you're an American who is working for al-Qaeda, don't be surprised if the CIA doesn't just up and kill you. That is the bottomline on the new operational orders that President Bush has given to the American spy agency in conducting operations against al-Qaeda. The authority to carry out targeting and killing operations was contained in secret findings signed by Bush after September 11th. The findings didn't specify nationality of the target, therefore officials can conclude that the authority to kill extends to American citizens," MAYORBOB writes. "An American spokesman, speaking anonymously, said that the CIA would prefer to capture al-Qaeda combatants, but that the policy clearly allows them to raise the stakes of the game. An American citizen, Kamal Derwish, was killed by a CIA-directed missile strike in Yemen in November, however the CIA said that he wasn't the target of the strike. The family of Derwish says that the U.S. government has yet to officially notify them of Derwish's death and other than the tersest of declarations, the U.S. government hasn't spent much effort in defending his death. Historically, the only time that American citizens could be targeted and killed by the government was if the citizen was attacking or killing other Americans. The loosening of the rules have a few observers concerned. They reason that the definition of whom they can kill and the conditions under which these killings can take place are way too broad. "

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 88 commentsbest: 16 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  A good start   by gordon shumway       at Tue 3 Dec 6:00pm score of 0.5 disingenuous     "If you're an American who is working for al-Qaeda, don't be surprised if the CIA doesn't just up and kill you". If you're an American who is working for al-Qaeda, you have it coming. Since I'm an humanitarian, I will provide a humanitarian solution for Americans working for al-Qaeda which will prevent any future deaths: quit working for al-Qaeda.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: A good start   by mcDuffie       at Tue 3 Dec 6:08pm score of 3.5 compelling   in reply to comment 1     When does the part come where the government publicly proves the victim was working for al-Qaeda? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. My enemy's enemy's friend is my enemy's enemy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   3.  Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by gordon shumway       at Tue 3 Dec 6:22pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 2     You're right, he was probably on vacation in Yemen, met Qaed Senyan Harithi in a cafe, and then accepted the congenial Harithi's offer to be driven around Yemen to look at the local tourist attractions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: A good start to a new fascism   by celine lodhi       at Thu 5 Dec 12:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Does the government have the right to kill its own people within the United States if it suspects they might be engaged in nefarious activity? Specifically can it unleash hellfire missles into a Waco like complex if it feels there are terrorists about? Isn't this just an execution no matter how thinly you spread whatever legality is being used to justify these actions?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by Thalia       at Tue 3 Dec 6:34pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 3     I'm glad that the conservatives still believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." And by the way, when that was written, they didn't mean proven in the mind of someone who has their finger on the trigger... they meant proven in a court of law. Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by gordon shumway       at Tue 3 Dec 6:52pm score of 1 compelling   in reply to comment 5     Since when have we had to prove enemy combatants guilty in a court of law? Examples? If al-Qaeda members and their associates want to avoid being killed by our military and C.I.A. they can surrender.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by perrin       at Tue 3 Dec 7:20pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 9     Since when have we had to prove enemy combatants guilty in a court of law? Examples? If al-Qaeda members and their associates want to avoid being killed by our military and C.I.A. they can surrender. Right, but that doesn't really work if the suspect is actually innocent. Thus the whole having-to-prove-people-guilty angle some people press for. "How very strange that would feel, to be so well understood."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by Mark McGrath       at Tue 3 Dec 7:26pm score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 3     You're right, he probably wasn't. But someone's life shouldn't be decided by what he probably might have been doing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by gordon shumway       at Tue 3 Dec 7:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     So all al-Qeada members have to do to protect themselves from assassination is get some American dumbfuck to hang around with them? Even if Derwish wasn't up to anything (which is crap), he chose to put himself in harms way.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Sometimes you scare the shit out of me, shumway   by zanzibar       at Tue 3 Dec 7:43pm score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 9     Since when have we had to prove enemy combatants guilty in a court of law? Since 1789? 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. I'm certain that allowances can be made for combatants who are killed during an actual battle, but I'm pretty sure there was no intent to allow cold-blooded, targeted assassinations of US citizens under other circumstances. Citizens who may or may not actually be guilty of the alleged complicity. But hell, there's no clause specifically forbidding the government from executing American citizens without proof, so it must be ok, right?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by stankow       at Tue 3 Dec 7:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     I'm glad that the conservatives still believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." I bet you're significantly more glad of that than I am glad of the fact that you manage to confuse "the conservatives" with "gordon shumway." Didja get that tar brush on eBay or Amazon?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by itf       at Tue 3 Dec 7:56pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 21     I bet you're significantly more glad of that than I am glad of the fact that you manage to confuse "the conservatives" with "gordon shumway." Didja get that tar brush on eBay or Amazon? Sorry, stankow, but Gordon Shumway isn't the one who issued the order to the CIA. The guy that 49% of the country voted for did. Surely there are individual conservatives who disagree with this abrogation of our constitutional rights, and good for them, but until American conservatives stand up en masse and decry Bush's order, zanzibar's statement is perfectly legitimate. "Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by stankow       at Tue 3 Dec 8:14pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 24     Surely there are individual conservatives who disagree with this abrogation of our constitutional rights, and good for them, but until American conservatives stand up en masse and decry Bush's order, zanzibar's [sic] statement is perfectly legitimate. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the hue and cry raised by "the liberals" over this order. ... Man, that is one loud hue. The cry isn't bad, either. You want to say "I'm glad that George W. Bush still believes in the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty,'" that's fine. You want to say "I'm glad that gordon shumway still believes in the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty,'" that's fine. But tarring all conservatives with that brush is just as foolish as when people say, "I'm glad to see that the liberals still hate America."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by itf       at Tue 3 Dec 9:07pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 26     I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the hue and cry raised by "the liberals" over this order. Since the story only broke this morning, it's hardly surprising that there hasn't been a lot of commentary yet. Nonetheless, based on the last fourteen months, I'm going to predict that many liberals will have choice words about the latest volley in the Bush administration's continuing assault on our civil rights, whereas many conservatives will continue to defend anything Bush does while insinuating that critics of the administration's policies lack patriotism. I'm only basing this guess on prior experience, mind. But tarring all conservatives with that brush is just as foolish as when people say, "I'm glad to see that the liberals still hate America." I took Thalia's statement (which I mistakenly attributed to zanzibar earlier; my bad) as referring to conservatives in general, not as literally referring to the set of every self-identified conservative in the country. Generally a statement about "Republicans", "Democrats", "conservatives", or "liberals" is interpreted this way, and statements about said groups are not intended as claims that the beliefs or tendencies of every member of said groups are uniform. Furthermore, I explicitly acknowledged that there are surely individuals who count themselves both conservative and dismayed by this policy, and I'm sure Thalia would do likewise. That said, if I see a general withdrawal of public support for Bush, or if notable conservative commentators speak out against this policy, I will withdraw my defense of Thalia's generalization. I doubt that such will be forthcoming. As for your bizarre comparison of Thalia's comment (conservatives not believing in due process any more) to liberals hating America, I invite you to note that Bush, who issued an order abrogating Americans' right to due process, still enjoys widespread support among conservatives, enough to get him elected president and maintain a performance rating over 50%. I'd ask who the comparably popular (among liberals) figure is who hates America. Chomsky? Give me a break. Produce a Gore or Daschle or Clinton who can legitimately be said to "hate America" and I'll buy your line, but not before. "Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by stankow       at Tue 3 Dec 9:21pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 30     Since the story only broke this morning, it's hardly surprising that there hasn't been a lot of commentary yet. And yet, you still defend the painting of all of "the conservatives" because their response seems to be exactly that of "the liberals." I took Thalia's statement (which I mistakenly attributed to zanzibar earlier; my bad) as referring to conservatives in general, not as literally referring to the set of every self-identified conservative in the country. I long ago lost count of people who complain about "the Gypsies" without realizing I was one. I hope you don't mind me continuing to take such comments personally, despite the fact that such statements can be taken to mean Gypsies in general, not as literally referring to the set of every person of Romany heritage in the world.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by itf       at Wed 4 Dec 1:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     And yet, you still defend the painting of all of "the conservatives" because their response seems to be exactly that of "the liberals." First of all, I explicitly differentiated between painting all conservatives as having a view, and asserting that in general they seem to hold a position. Thalia clearly meant her statement in the latter sense, and that's the only sense in which I support it. Can we move on from semantics to substance, please? As for the conservatives' response being "exactly that of 'the liberals'" - as I said, news of this particular offense to the Constitution has been out for less than 24 hours. On the other hand, I've seen tremendously different responses from the liberal and conservative camps on the Bush administration's other recent violations of our constitutional freedoms. I've noticed a lot of liberal voices speaking up against the Bushies sending prisoners of war to military tribunals, imprisoning American citizens at Guantanamo without access to attorneys, arranging secret deportation hearings, and allowing the government unheard-of latitude to spy on citizens - just to name a few. I have not heard a similar outcry from conservatives. I see no reason to expect a different result regarding yesterday's revelation that Bush has authorized the CIA to assassinate American citizens without trial. I long ago lost count of people who complain about "the Gypsies" without realizing I was one. I hope you don't mind me continuing to take such comments personally, despite the fact that such statements can be taken to mean Gypsies in general, not as literally referring to the set of every person of Romany heritage in the world. stankow, that is bullshit and it is beneath you. Your comparison of Thalia's/my position (that conservatives aren't protesting the loss of our constitutional rights) to racism is purely inflammatory and does nothing to advance this discussion. You're trying to impose a standard that essentially precludes any generalization about any group whatsoever, which kind of limits useful discussion. May I say that conservatives generally favor less government and traditional values? Or will you take me to task for unfairly tarring those conservatives who disagree? More to the point, you've avoided actually challenging the assertion at hand. If you want to argue that I'm wrong - that conservatives are speaking up, or will speak up, against this policy - I'd be interested to read what you have to say. If you want to piss and moan about word choice and bitch about how making any general statement about a political faction is akin to racism, well, fine, but don't expect me to bother responding any further. "Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by paul_holloway       at Wed 4 Dec 3:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Shumway, what is this shit about "Al-Qaida members"? Al-Qaida is a place, not an organisation. "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by Argus Defthammer       at Wed 4 Dec 4:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     You're right, he was probably on vacation in Yemen, met Qaed Senyan Harithi in a cafe, and then accepted the congenial Harithi's offer to be driven around Yemen to look at the local tourist attractions Well, chances are he was up to some hanky-panky over there. But the thing is...we may never know. Diamond encrusted howler monkey   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by StofCircumstance       at Wed 4 Dec 4:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     Not being too confident of my knowledge of the Middle East, I must ask: Al-Qaeda is a PLACE? Where, pray tell is this mythical land? The only Al-Qaeda I know about is the one that runs around, turning 767's into missiles and killing innocent people with no real warning. This particular Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, run by the little-known OSAMA BIN LADEN. Although, since you've spelled it "organiSation" instead of "organiZation," should I just assume you're not from America? At that point, should I begin to worry that the rest of the world is getting news we aren't? (No, wait, I've been worrying about that for years...) Or should I just keep thinking that you have mistaken something for something else? Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by eduardo       at Wed 4 Dec 7:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 56     Since he spelled it a certain way, I assume he's talking about some place somewhere, trying to make fun of Shumway. In reality, it's all transliteration and it doesn't matter how you spell it. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by paul_holloway       at Thu 5 Dec 2:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 56     "Al-Qaida" means "The Base". It is the name of the training camp which used to exist in Afghanistan. By implying that Al-Qaida is an organisation, it means that any disaffected Muslims who commit acts of terrorism against the West can be labelled as "members of Al-Qaida". For years, the same thing was done in the Middle East with "Hizbollah". "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: Lie down with dogs, and get killed like one   by ignoblus       at Fri 6 Dec 2:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 70     I do believe you are mistaken. "Al-Qaida" does in fact mean "the base," but I do believe that is used as the name of an organization. One which, actually began in Saudi Arabia before any such base was established in Afghanistan. Even if I'm wrong on this, the organization certainly does exist. Though, like you, I don't want to see all disaffected Muslims, or even Muslim terrorists called al-Qaida. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  I wonder when...   by silver222       at Tue 3 Dec 6:32pm score of 2 witty     The DEA is going to be allowed to smart bomb the homes of people growing marijuana in their basements. After all, the commercials said that if you smoke pot, you helped to kill people on 9/11. That makes you a terrorist, doesn't it?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Where's Orwell?   by meridies       at Tue 3 Dec 6:41pm score of 2 succinct     Between this and the John Poindexter appointment, I'm basically ready to consider myself a formal candidate for relocation to somewhere that the rule of law applies. Due process? --meridies-- remember you are what you eat - this includes media consumption   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Where's Orwell?   by profwhat       at Tue 3 Dec 6:49pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 6     Members of hostile militaries have never received "due process" unless they surrender. If you're an American who is suspected of working for al Qaeda, you can always turn yourself in.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Where's Orwell?   by Thalia       at Tue 3 Dec 6:54pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 7     The only problem is that I don't know what I'm suspected of doing/being. And they don't have to tell me. They can simply shoot me, and then claim it was because they suspected I was a member of Al Qaeda. What is my (or my estate's) recourse? Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Surrender is no guarantee   by zanzibar       at Tue 3 Dec 8:08pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     Members of hostile militaries have never received "due process" unless they surrender. If you're an American who is suspected of working for al Qaeda, you can always turn yourself in. Only one huge problem with your statement: unlawful combatants-- even US citizens taken into custody inside the US-- have no right to due process. At least, according to the same administration that issued this directive. Ask Jose Padilla. So surrendering doesn't guarantee you anything at all-- it simply lowers the probability that you'll be killed. I suppose that's comforting, but you have to have pretty low standards if you think that's acceptable conduct on the part of our gov't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Where's Orwell?   by profwhat       at Tue 3 Dec 7:31pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 10     I agree that if they had an opportunity to give you notice -- or even if they had opportunity to arrest you -- but kill you anyway, that's a due process violation. But that doesn't seem to be what's afoot. From the article: These officials said the authority will be used only when other options are unavailable. Military-like strikes will take place only when law enforcement and internal security efforts by allied foreign countries fail, the officials said. Capturing and questioning al-Qaida operatives is preferable, even more so if an operative is a U.S. citizen... We don't have access to the grant of authority, so it's hard to tell whether this is a requirement or just an internal policy. But right now I see no reason to be too concerned about due process based on this new authority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Where's Orwell?   by itf       at Tue 3 Dec 7:43pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 15     Capturing and questioning al-Qaida operatives is preferable, even more so if an operative is a U.S. citizen... We don't have access to the grant of authority, so it's hard to tell whether this is a requirement or just an internal policy. But right now I see no reason to be too concerned about due process based on this new authority. You see no reason to be concerned? Well, goddamn. I mean I'm glad that the government still finds arrest of American citizens preferable to summary execution. Personally, though, I'd prefer to hang onto that Constitutional amendment that says I have a right to due process, and not just so long as the CIA prefers that I have it. "Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Legality   by eiger       at Tue 3 Dec 7:10pm score of 1     Seriously though, what is the legality of this? I'm not too comfortable about what happaned in Yemen, but can at least see, since he did not appear to be the actual target, it being somewhat acceptable. If you're traveling with a known terrorist, then it seems you sort of have to accept the risks. (This is of course ignoring whether or not the original assassination was acceptable or not.) However, if they ever actually explicit target American citizens, I would have a big problem with that. I could MAYBE see it being legal if they followed the Israeli practice of secret courts issuing death sentences (as long as the courts in some way involved juries), but even that would be pretty sketchy. Hopefully, the talk of using the power on Americans is just that, talk. Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Re: Legality   by nmiguy       at Wed 4 Dec 2:17pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 12     Let's see. In a time of war if you see the enemy on the battlefield and the enemy does not surrender, an order to kill is acceptable, right? You don't go up to the enemy and say "you're under arrest and will be afforded due process to confirm that you are indeed an enemy." So how is it illegal or immoral to kill al-Qaeda? They are our enemy. Those who assist and abet the enemy are just as bad. This weirds me out because so many people are applying peace time standards but this is not peace time. This is war time. We know who the enemy is, it is al-Qaeda and all that assist al-Qaeda. So even an American citizen who aids them is fair game. It isn't an issue of legality, as in some kid robs a liquor store and gets arrested and get due process to prove innocence. This is a war and those who are enemies or helping the enemy get killed or surrender. It isn't exactly "fair" but fairness is not exactly the way to win a war. You don't say to your generals not to do a certain tactic to your enemy because it wouldn't be fair to them. How fair is it to innocent civilians to have a plane crash into their workplace? I'm seriously not trying to be disingenuous here. Please please PLEASE stop pretending like this is some legal issue and that this is peace time. Y'all have more sympathy for the damn terrorist killers than you do for the victims of 9/11. That's screwed up. Let's all try and remember that THEY ATTACKED US. Now if we respond by killing their sorry little asses, that's what they brought upon themselves here. We really don't need to clog up out court systems trying to prove the ENEMY COMBATANTS are really enemies here. We caught 'em shooting at us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Legality   by Genady       at Wed 4 Dec 3:03pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 46     If this is a time of War, why aren't we treating it like one? "If we change our way of life, the terrorists have already won" Well, which is it going to be, are we going on with our peaceful lives, or are we at War? Because I really can't tell. Aside from 9/11 there's been precious little pain and suffering on the American side. I really haven't even been inconvenienced. If we are at War it's time the administration started acting like it. Get a declaration from congress and let's go kill those bastards. Oh wait, we can't seem to get that declaration. I wonder why. Maybe it's because not everyone in this country believes in going to war with a nebulous organization, or maybe they don't see the clear and present danger that others do. The fact is we are NOT at War. No declaration, no War. If we use your slippery definition of war we're also at War with Drugs, Obesity, the designated hitter, and probably mom and apple pie. Last I knew the CIA couldn't off you for eating a cheeseburger while watching Barry Bonds step up to the place while toking on a Cheech Marin sized doobie, but the person that does that IS helping the antagonist of all those other wars. Right, but those other wars aren't really wars, but the war on terrorism is really a war. Ummm, yeah. If this is truly a War on terrorism, why isn't the CIA plinking all of the folks in Boston that contribute to the IRA, or Greenpeace, or Israel, or Palestine? I'm sorry NMI, we've had some good debates here, but you're wrong on this one. If we're at War, declare it and remove the gray areas. The President doesn't have the power to declare war, he can only ask congress. My problem with all of these 'Security measures' that have cropped up in the last year is the power that is leaking away from Congress, and the people, and into the executive branch. The whole affair is so eerily reminiscent of McCarthyism and a large central European country in the late 1930's. We've got to hunt them down, put them in camps, kill them, and any that would help them, or stand up for their rights. You can't tell me that that doesn't raise goose(stepping)bumps on the back of your neck? Here's a question to ask yourself: "Why didn't they throw the Book at Jane Fonda in '72, or just kill her for associating with the enemy in another undeclared war?" -- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: Legality   by wetzel       at Thu 5 Dec 4:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 46     Let's see. In a time of war if you see the enemy on the battlefield and the enemy does not surrender, an order to kill is acceptable, right? You don't go up to the enemy and say "you're under arrest and will be afforded due process to confirm that you are indeed an enemy." I'm afraid nmiguy that you are substituting a Straw Man for the point of view that has serious problems with the legal and institutional framework Bush and Corp. are installing for this War. This War is going to be permanent fixture of American life. There is no question about that, and a legal black hole where there are no due process rights is in the process of judicial and bureaucratic birth. Osama and his cohort must be defeated. Kill every one of those sons of bitches, but do not allow our government to institutionalize the power of secret assassinations and disappearances. You are inviting tyranny if you do. It astonishes me, the lack of respect for the Constitution and due process in the Bush administration and among the American people. What a bunch of cowards and spoiled children! The Constitution was created out of wreckage of war in a time of crisis, cast by the will, intellect, and moral vision of individuals who could see a way to break free from history's cauldron of torture and despotism. Throughout history all over the world, tyranny has been the norm for societies. Tyranny is calling us back right now. The American people have faced worse crises than the present conflict with Islamic fanaticism. The Constitution survived these crises because of the quality of the leadership and the vigilance of the American people. Let's imagine forward ten, twenty, thirty, one hundred years. What kind of world do we live in, or what government have we left our grandchildren to live under? The Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, Executives Order #'s etc etc are all now long established precedents. The War on Terrorism is a permanent institution. But now there is an economic collapse and food riots, are the 'terrorists' disappeared? (Everyone has 'international' ties) Are the anarchists purged? Suppose the environment reaches a tipping point and the monsoons fail year after year in the tropics precipitating a horrible catastrophe, and so then, Greenpeace grows a militant arm. Does past or present membership in Greenpeace, or association with members of Greenpeace, target you for elimination? The Office of Total Information Awareness could generate the real-time list and the CIA could carry out the disappearances (or maybe the FBI now that there is 'proper information sharing'). The framework to make this possible is being created right now. The worst tyrant of all, without the Constitution, would be the American people in a state of terror. Do you think your granddaughter's disappearance will be covered on the MSNBC-Fox-CNN News Channel?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Legality   by nmiguy       at Wed 4 Dec 3:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Genady, you totally rule. Thanks for taking a sincere and passionate stance in the discussion. You state that I am wrong on this and I'll consider that. My problem with all of these 'Security measures' that have cropped up in the last year is the power that is leaking away from Congress, and the people, and into the executive branch. The whole affair is so eerily reminiscent of McCarthyism and a large central European country in the late 1930's. We've got to hunt them down, put them in camps, kill them, and any that would help them, or stand up for their rights. You can't tell me that that doesn't raise goose(stepping)bumps on the back of your neck? Yet you state Because I really can't tell. Aside from 9/11 there's been precious little pain and suffering on the American side. I really haven't even been inconvenienced. So which is it? Are you inconvenienced or not? Because if not then these 'security measures' don't make a difference. Methinks you protest only possibilities and not realities. If this is a time of War, why aren't we treating it like one? That is the same question I'm asking my Plastic friends. Why are we NOT treating this like a war? Why are we assuming that peace time rules apply, when our President has authorized deadly force against an enemy of the nation? When our country has attacked and overthrown the Afghanistan government? Because this IS war even though there has been no formal declaration of war. The Vietnam war never was a declared war. Are you telling me it wasn't a war? Aside from 9/11 there's been precious little pain and suffering on the American side. Tell that to the many Islamic Americans who have been assaulted or put in fear. Tell that to the people who suffered through Anthrax. Tell that to the people who worked for Airlines who lost their jobs. Tell that to the Americans who lost a breadwinner or two on 9/11. There's plenty of suffering. And the fact that we still have al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to worry about, well that ain't exactly blissful Americana. I'm sorry NMI, we've had some good debates here, but you're wrong on this one. If we're at War, declare it and remove the gray areas. I may be wrong. But if I'm right, can we afford for me to be right and still go along like it is peace time and there's no war? Just because Congress doesn't declare war does not mean there isn't one. Congress just had its mid-term elections. Right now that group is in disarray. Give it a little time and maybe they'll get with the program. The real question is, will the REST of America get with it too?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Legality   by Genady       at Wed 4 Dec 3:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 52     Methinks you protest only possibilities and not realities. You're right. The question to me is when should the German people have risen up to over throw Hitler? If you wait until he's sending Jews off to the gas chamber it's too late. We have the opportunity to question this rampant, self-centered, nationalism BEFORE we start sending 'terrorists' to the gas chamber. I'm all with you on the 'are we at War, why aren't we acting like it?' question. My big problem with the administration about this whole issue is they trot out the 'we're at war' line when it serves them, then go back to 'please keep spending money, the consumer is the only thing holding up the economy' when they get off the subject at hand. You know what really gets me? The administration is Charlie Brown on terrorism. They have to be, because this is a wishy-washy world, but they don't talk like that. Everything I hear come out of Powell's mouth makes me feel at ease. When I hear Powell's words come out of Bush's mouth I feel at ease. I feel like the administration has a good handle on the information and will make an informed decision. Then it slams back to this Rush Limbaugh screed that really makes me think that they don't give a god damned what anyone else thinks, what the ramifications of their actions are, or the information needed to make an informed decision. You're right, I'm afraid of what might happen, because the administrations communications policy is all over the board at a time when it should be well thought out, sure and steady. I wouldn't even have a problem with this latest CIA revelation if I FELT that people in Washington had their heads screwed on right. This is Bush's ultimate failing. He just can't consistently put the center at ease because he's pandering to the right. sigh You know, I'd actually feel better if Reagan was back in office, he at least could act well enough to look centrist when he was as far right as he could get. I still think you're wrong on the substance of the issue though, but then I don't see us on a wartime footing. I don't think we killed German sympathizers on American soil during WWII without a trial (unless there was an immediate threat). That's what we fear. The killing of suspects. I'm sorry, but we convict innocent people in this country, how are we supposed to believe when someone tells us it was in our interest to kill someone suspected of terrorist involvement? The saddest thing though, is those people who died on 9/11 could have been remembered as dying for our liberty, but history has worked against that at every turn it seems. Now I at least will remember them as dying for political gain. That's wrong. -- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: Legality   by nmiguy       at Thu 5 Dec 7:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 71     Wetzel, Your fantasy of the future is, uh, interesting. I could probably come up with animagining of the world as well, that would be quite different. The odds are that neither of us would be correct. But you can generate a lot of fears for an imagined future based upon today's events. I personally do not see the War on Terror as a permanent fixture. You say Tyranny is calling us back now. Perhaps, but not for sure. First of all, I have not seen my government act tyrannical against me. I have not seen my government round up citizens and kill them arbitrarily. I have seen my government try to address a difficult problem of hidden terrorists trying to kill Americans. You think dealing with this is easy? You think that fighting an unseen enemy is not going to be a little scary? You think that dealing with this murdering scum using civil means and affording them the luxury of rights will be effective? As far as I know, the Constitution really has jurisdiction over American citizens and provides American citizens with rights to due process. It doesn't guarantee these rights to the enemy, nor IMHO, should it. Sure we recognize there are the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for people, but when my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are put in jeopardy by enemy terrorists, I feel they have waived all claims to those rights. What a bunch of cowards and spoiled children! ??? Cowards? What have Bush & Co done that is cowardly? Spoiled children? What have they done that shows them to be spoiled children? And what does the Constitution have to do with Courage and being spoiled children? You've lost me. You're calling Bush & Co tyrants. That is just plain nonsense. The tyrant label is EASILY applicable to Saddam Hussein. If you're applying it to George W Bush, you're using a VERY narrow definition of tyrant, and you're using it from actions that are only MARGINALLY tyrannical, considering the times and the situation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  tell you what   by nmiguy       at Thu 5 Dec 8:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     If Bush & Co take away my right to bear arms, if they send jack booted thigs to drag me from my bed in the middle of the night and question me without a call to my lawyer, if they arrest me for expressing a political opinion, if they incarcerate me for nothing, and if they make it illegal for me to follow my religious faith, then I will gladly change my mind and consider them tyrants. As far as I can tell, Bush & Co are targeting the terrorists. I don't see much wrong with that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: Legality   by Genady       at Thu 5 Dec 9:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 72     You say Tyranny is calling us back now. Perhaps, but not for sure. First of all, I have not seen my government act tyrannical against me. I have not seen my government round up citizens and kill them arbitrarily. I have seen my government try to address a difficult problem of hidden terrorists trying to kill Americans. You think dealing with this is easy? You think that fighting an unseen enemy is not going to be a little scary? You think that dealing with this murdering scum using civil means and affording them the luxury of rights will be effective? Funny it worked fine for Joe McCarthy. -- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Legality   by wetzel       at Thu 5 Dec 9:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 72     nmiguy, Al Quaeda is a cunning, vicious enemy, and we are in for the long nightmare with this conflict. We did not choose the fight, but now we have it until Al Quaeda is defeated. This is an inarguable point, so why keep revisiting the obvious. Critics of Bush who point out that there is more than one way to skin a cat aren't defending the cat. Protecting due process rights doesn't mean you don't kill the enemy in battle. Al Quaeda is so cunning that 19 men with box-cutters have caused us to turn our backs on the one thousand year tradition of due process in English common law. At this point, at least two American citizens are being held by their own government in indefinite, secret detention without a hearing or counsel. With, I understand, one exception during the Civil War, I don't believe this type of event has happened in North America, in colonial or post-colonial times. Also I should point out that your statement regarding the Constitution is incorrect: As far as I know, the Constitution really has jurisdiction over American citizens and provides American citizens with rights to due process. It doesn't guarantee these rights to the enemy, nor IMHO, should it. The rights enumerated in Bill of Rights are specified for "persons" in the country not "citizens". This is an important point, long taken, for example, to mean that illegal immigrants benefit from the same due process in criminal prosecutions. Note the wording of the 5th amendment, for example: 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. Note that it says "any person" not "any citizen" in a significant departure from the Roman legal tradition, for example, where citizens had substantially greater legal rights than noncitizens. The wording "any person" guarantees "equal justice for all." This was a fundamental point that human beings, through their inherent dignity and equality, are entitled to due process. Do not take this to mean that soldiers are required to read Miranda rights to the enemy on the battle-field. What this does mean is that the government cannot seize assassinate any person on U.S. soil without due process. Apparently, there were several points which I did not manage to communicate effectively in my earlier post. You would like me to defend my supposed naming of George Bush a tyrant, but I never made the statement. Rather than a tyrant, I believe George Bush to be a well-intentioned, though profoundly ignorant man, who has been burdened with enormous responsibilities clearly beyond his scope. His two primary responsibilities are to protect the security of the American people and to uphold the Constitution. These are his sworn duties, but he isn't a tyrant, just a deeply irresponsible man who does not know the damage he is doing. The argument isn't that the Bush Administration is tyrannical but that they are unwittingly institutionalizing the apparatus of tyranny. Imagine how different the Civil Rights movement might have fared, if J. Edgar Hoover had possessed the powers this government is arrogating to itself. It may be ten, twenty, or one hundred years before there is the right combination of crisis, fear, power and ambition, but Bush, the Congress, and the courts are setting the stage for the end of our free society.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: tell you what   by kallisti       at Thu 5 Dec 2:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 74     First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. - Pastor Martin Niemöller   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  on the other hand...   by coprolalia       at Tue 3 Dec 8:37pm score of 2 funny     this little bit of policy could give us a brand new non-fossil power source - all we have to do is harness the power generated by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, the framers of the Constitution, etc spinning in their graves at roughly 9 Billion RPMs My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Shumway's Error   by RhonertDeUrban       at Tue 3 Dec 8:51pm score of 2.5 nuanced     If I may, I'd like to play devil's advocate for the Shumway faction. Practica and pragmatica: The Yemen guy was almost certainly a al-quedian. After all, test cases like this are usually thought out real well and the screw up factor is low. Attempting to extradite the guy to the US would have been a big hassle with the Yemenis...and then after such an extradition, the huff over fair trials and shit would come up...a real time waster, especially for that guilty as sin bastard. Shumway's deficit: A lack of principles. Imagine cops being given free rain to lock you up based on their suspicions alone. Pragmatically speaking, this would most likely work fine in a majority (slim one) of cases and we'd all be free from ever doing jury duty again!!! Of course, eventually human laziness, greed, arrogance, and power-madness (all traits held by G-men/CIA/humanity) would corrupt even the most steadfast rookie (ever talk to a veteran cop?). A neutral arbitrator (judge) and citizen council (jury) keeps the system in line and assure each of us that a TYRANT cannot take our inalienable rights from us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Lawyerly Rant for the Day...   by Thalia       at Tue 3 Dec 9:00pm score of 3.5 informative     I'm having a bad lawyer day, so be forwarned. The Bush Administration relies on Ex parte Quirin which has a storied past. But even leaving that aside, the Supreme Court in Quirin states specifically: We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered, or after entry remained in, our territory without uniform -- an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission. The Court thus specifically draws lines for "entering the country without uniform" and "being in the employ of a foreign government" as enemies. Why did the Court have to draw this distinction? There is another case, from the time of the Civil War, called Ex parte Mulligan, which stated specifically that: The law of war can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed. The Court did NOT overturn Mulligan. Rather, they stated that Milligen was "a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents." Thus, in accordance with Milligan and Quirin, the potential defintion of an "enemy combatant" to whom the laws of war do not apply, but who can be tried by a military tribunal is only *a spy who sneaks into the US* to commit sabotage. I might also add that neither Quirin nor Milligan, nor any other case I have ever heard of, authorizes the unilateral murder/assassination of alleged enemy combanants, but simply moving the trial to a military tribunal from a civil tribunal. Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

68.  I'm no lawyer, but...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 4 Dec 10:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Ex parte Milligan is oft-invoked, but the usinfo piece you linked notes the key point without really emphasizing it sufficiently: Although this seems only a technical matter, the case gave the Supreme Court a chance -- now that the fighting was over -- to comment on the limits of the government's war powers. In what many scholars hail as a landmark in constitutional protection of civil liberties, the Court decided that military rule could not supersede the civil courts in areas where the civil courts and government remained open and operational. Indiana had been a loyal state, and its regular government and courts had functioned throughout the war. In such a situation, the military courts had no jurisdiction over civilians. Certainly the language of Milligan allows the courts to interpose themselves between the citizenry on the one hand, and Congress, the president and the armed forces on the other. There is little doubt that the Lincoln administration overreacted to threats of potential disorder in the northern states, and the arbitrary use of executive authority -- often without congressional approval -- could only be justified by the unique conditions surrounding the Civil War. The Court's rebuff, however, came late, and its primary value was as a precedent for future governmental action. The United States, fortunately, has since been spared the problems of internal security in wartime to which Lincoln had to respond. The fact is that Milligan was judicial tut-tutting well after the fact, and its value as precedent is, as the author notes, at best untested--given the Quirin case, one can see just how little weight Milligan actually holds in wartime. None of this necessarily justifies the broad thrust of the current administration's policies relating to civil liberties, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time that the political opposition cried foul about government policy during wartime with absolutely zero impact. I found Mark Neely's The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties very educational on this subject. One could take some comfort from the fact that these (and other) past instances of executive excess during wartime have notably failed to produce the much-feared slippery slope to dictatorship. While I agree that describing the current state of affairs as "war" is convenient for the Administration but of dubious definitional merit, the fact remains that what is permissible for the government to do is very much contingent on political realities rather than legal doctrines--and the political mood in the US at present is pretty focused on national security. So the fact that the administration is exploiting that is not surprising to me. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Maybe Baldwin was right.   by OneWingedAngel       at Tue 3 Dec 10:39pm score of 1.5 clever     And you all laughed when Alec Baldwin said he'd move to Canada if Bush was elected. Doesn't sound that silly anymore, does it!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Re: Maybe Baldwin was right.   by b10hazrd       at Tue 3 Dec 11:02pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 32     No it NEVER did - it'd be so WONDERFUL if we got 'ol Alec to move to Canada :) Sincerely, Kevin Christie crispiewm@hotmail.com "The crowning intellectual accomplishment of the brain is the real world..."--George Miller - Psychologist   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  I don't know.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 3 Dec 11:11pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 32     Do you think he'd be any easier to run down in Canada? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: I don't know.   by Argus Defthammer       at Wed 4 Dec 5:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Do you think he'd be any easier to run down in Canada? Canada is cold and less populated...much easier to safely target a hellfire missile. Diamond encrusted howler monkey   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Fascinating...   by JackH       at Tue 3 Dec 11:06pm score of 3.5 compelling     Remember way, way back in the Nineties, when it was taken for granted that "conservatives" distrusted the government? Clintonistas used those anti-government attitudes to evoke spectres of white nationalist militias, training in every backwoods part of the country, waiting to overthrow the government. It's just fascinating to now see the deep, sincere trust many conservatives suddenly have in this very same government. Of course the government will only kill the bad guys. Of course the government will never stretch the truth about who it has the desire to kill. Of course it will only be al-Qaida members. It's just sad to see that people's attitudes towards the potential abuses of government seem to be based on which party is in charge, not on old-fashioned things like the Constitution. Really, really sad. "If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Re: Fascinating...   by Violator       at Tue 3 Dec 11:51pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 34     You forgot to add of course the act will be repealed when the current situation with Al Quaeda is over and done with. - - - - - - - - Anyone who cannot see the amazing potential for abuse that this power gives is, frankly, a blind fool. These are the same abuses of legal process, human rights, fairness, humanity and general doo-goodering which the Axis Of Evil guys and previous Axis Of Evil Alumni (Ghadafi, Khomeni, N Korea's ex-prez, etc etc) have used. The STASI and KGB and the Romanian gestapo inheritors all 'disappeared' people in similar fashion. We didn't think that they were very nice gentlemen at all, did we? Yet we see the same laws passed, or laws which essentially give catre blanche to the CIA to effect the same sorts of crimes (only now they aren't crimes) as all the lowlife totalitarian dictatorships in history, going right back to the Nazi's and before. Step forward for the land of the free it aint. This isn't only about the CIA's ability to kill its own citizens either. Its also about their right to kill, without trial of any kind, the citizens of any other nation. Lets not forget that. What is stopping the CIA from killing 'Al Quaeda' suspects unilaterally? Nothing. What's to say they are all ex-pat Saudi billionaires and religious nutcases? Nothing. That is as disturbing to me, an aussie, as anything else. Hop the wrong bus or taxi in a muslim country and see how exciting it is to be charged (explosively), tried (with shrapnel), judged and executed (at the end of a missile). Like I've said, this is War on Some People's Terror. Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Judge, Jury, and Executioner   by dewdrops       at Wed 4 Dec 12:20am score of 1.5 succinct     What happened to "due process" ? Or "innocent until proven guilty" ? I don't care what the crime is; a citizen is entitled to his day in court. This is terrible. It's true that theres ~0% chance of this affecting me or anyone I know and most likely the CIA would only do something when they're sure, but even just the idea of this is appalling.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  In other news...   by Woof       at Wed 4 Dec 2:36am score of 2.5 astute     Sources reveal that Woodrow Wilson gave the U.S. Army permission to shoot Americans found in the German trenches... You really don't expect me to believe that this American had no idea that his compatriots were Al-Qaeda, do you? "Man, I was just thumbing a ride through Yemen to get to see the next Dead show, and this van picks me up. They seemed like cool guys as long as you didn't mention the Crusades, which really set them off." If you choose to associate with military combatants who refuse to wear a uniform, per international law, so that they can be distinguished from civilians, there is a fairly good chance that you will die. disingenuous does not mean "I have have no rebuttal for your argument."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Re: In other news...   by meehawl       at Wed 4 Dec 2:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     If you choose to associate with military combatants who refuse to wear a uniform, per international law, so that they can be distinguished from civilians, there is a fairly good chance that you will die.   So US journalists that, god forbid, interview suspected terrorists should watch the skies for missiles? What about aid workers? Is that the justification the Israelis use when they sniper assassinate UN humanitarian workers? Extra-judicial killing and assassination is a slippery slope. Mike Rogers www.meehawl.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: In other news...   by Richard Banks       at Wed 4 Dec 8:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     So US journalists that, god forbid, interview suspected terrorists should watch the skies for missiles? What about aid workers? Yes, it goes with the territory, something journalists and aid workers know full well. I agree with you about the moral implications for targeted assassinations, particularly in heavily populated cities. Firing a missile at a car full of combatants in a war, though, is not assassination. "I'm Against This War. But I'm not with These Other People."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  States and feds already target and kill Americans   by katn77       at Wed 4 Dec 2:31pm score of 1     It's called capital punishment. If it's acceptable in this country for the government to execute an American for killing one other person (capital punishment for murder being allowed in many states), it stands to reason that it's also acceptable for the government to kill an American for killing a lot of people via a terrorist act. I know the legal distinction is probably more divisive than my take on it, but I think the moral issue is pretty much the same. That's not saying I necessarily agree with either, just to point out that the government does indeed kill Americans who have transgressed against US citizens already.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

77.  Good show   by neverlearn2       at Thu 5 Dec 9:13am score of 0.5 obnoxious     Miss Sue Collins is a fat cunt. Bile flows from her pussy. She sits around and gets a bit fatter with each moment. Have another malt beer, and a piece of fried chicken honey child, oh you so silly.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

82.  The Anti-Catch-22   by dug4000       at Thu 5 Dec 9:40am score of 1.5 astute     From the Associated Press writeup: In killing him, the administration defined Derwish as an enemy combatant, the equivalent of a U.S. citizen who fights with the enemy on a battlefield, officials said. Under this legal definition, experts say, his constitutional rights are nullified and he can be killed outright. So to summarize, our killing of Derwish means he was an enemy, and therefore legitimately killable. It's okay that we killed him, because we did! Do you see how much can be accomplished when you're not hindered by logic or ethics? Spring Theatreworks   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

87.  Re: The Anti-Catch-22   by stankow       at Thu 5 Dec 10:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 82     So to summarize, our killing of Derwish means he was an enemy, and therefore legitimately killable. It's okay that we killed him, because we did! That's the AP's writeup, not the government's. Take out "In killing him," and I'd say it's a much fairer representation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: The Anti-Catch-22   by dug4000       at Thu 5 Dec 12:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 87     True. It's the AP's writeup, and that is why I made a point of saying so. Then I admit I had a bit of fun with it, trying to inject some humor into the discussion. However, the administration hasn't really made a case for how they defined Derwish as an enemy, other than guilt-by-association. I'm not looking for particular reasons to posthumously exonerate Derwish here, but I am very interested in this administration's marked tendency to do whatever the hell it wants, then figure out the excuses later. It doesn't really seem to matter to them what excuses they use, just so long as they get what they want. Hey why not? It worked so well for them in the past. Spring Theatreworks   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]