Debate III, the one just for Languish: US Foreign Policy

[CountDeMoney]

The darkie killin' is what I like about Brak.

All fucking Saracens must fucking hang.

[Count]

I know, it's something where I am really critical of Obama but Romney's not gonna bring it up. Hoping a moderator would though

It's Bob Schieffer, so he may.

Why, may I ask, are you so critical about it, anyway?  Is it the law school thing, learning all about due process and whatnot?

More that my interest in civil liberties led to law school (hence taking a job with... a corporate law firm  ). I'm a big Obama fan but I think civil liberties have been an enormous weak spot, and very disappointing given his background. The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process."

[lustindarkness]

I expected a better thread title. 

[CountDeMoney]

Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process."

Don't see what your bones are with Holder, since he's fellow a corporate law firm animal.   

And yes, US citizens that go off the reservation and collaborate with the enemy in a known, open and visible operational capacity deserve Zeus' thunderbolts, cast with great vigor and aplomb.  Fuck that due process shit.

[CountDeMoney]

I expected a better thread title. 

Much like the debates and and the election themselves, all worn out.

Besides, I just couldn't work Clubber Lang into the title. 

[Neil]

And yes, US citizens that go off the reservation and collaborate with the enemy in a known, open and visible operational capacity deserve Zeus' thunderbolts, cast with great vigor and aplomb.  Fuck that due process shit.

Count stands for moral cowardice, whether it's the Patriots or al-Qaeda.

[crazy canuck]

The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process."

I am not sure what you find so offensive about that.  If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.

Seems a bit unworkable to me. 

[Count]

The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process."

I am not sure what you find so offensive about that.  If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.

Seems a bit unworkable to me.

None of those groups generally go around conducting targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens. The closest analogue is the military (police and border security don't make any sense in this context, to the point where I'm not sure what you're arguing), but targeting a citizen for death is different from killing someone in a firefight.

edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).

[crazy canuck]

The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process."

I am not sure what you find so offensive about that.  If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.

Seems a bit unworkable to me.

None of those groups generally go around conducting targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens. The closest analogue is the military (police and border security don't make any sense in this context, to the point where I'm not sure what you're arguing), but targeting a citizen for death is different from killing someone in a firefight.

Ok so at least you agree that lethal force can be used without the need of a Court Order.  So lets go further.  At what point do you draw the line.  You seem to accept that where there is no premeditation that is fine so lets deal with situations where there is premeditation.

What if the government had good solid evidence a US citizen was about to commit a terrorist act which would kill thousands.  Would you say a court order was required before lethal force could be used to stop the act?

[Neil]

edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).

Congress gave him the power to fight terror.  He's only doing his job.

[crazy canuck]

edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).

Meh, sending people to die is part of the commander in chief's job isnt it?  The question is when is it appropriate to do so and if killing one can save many where is the moral objection?

[Count]

The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process."

I am not sure what you find so offensive about that.  If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.

Seems a bit unworkable to me.

None of those groups generally go around conducting targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens. The closest analogue is the military (police and border security don't make any sense in this context, to the point where I'm not sure what you're arguing), but targeting a citizen for death is different from killing someone in a firefight.

Ok so at least you agree that lethal force can be used without the need of a Court Order.  So lets go further.  At what point do you draw the line.  You seem to accept that where there is no premeditation that is fine so lets deal with situations where there is premeditation.

What if the government had good solid evidence a US citizen was about to commit a terrorist act which would kill thousands.  Would you say a court order was required before lethal force could be used to stop the act?

What scenario are you imagining exactly? If someone is at a mall and is about to light the fuse on an acme bomb, of course they can be shot; same way someone shooting up the mall can be shot. But we don't summarily execute suspected criminals in this country.

This is a situation where the President's power is so enormous -literally over life and death of an individual citizen- that due process becomes if anything more important than normal.

[Count]

edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).

Congress gave him the power to fight terror.  He's only doing his job.

I don't doubt that what Obama's doing is popular, or that Congress would hesitate (much) to give the President sweeping powers in the name of combatting terrorism. Obviously doesn't make it right.

[crazy canuck]

This is a situation where the President's power is so enormous -literally over life and death of an individual citizen- that due process becomes if anything more important than normal.

The President of the United States of America has had enormous power of life and death for a very long time.  The purpose of me asking the question which you did not answer is I want to understand where you would put limits on that power if such a limitation might cause the death innocent bystanders.

[Ed Anger]

The darkie killin' is what I like about Brak.

All fucking Saracens must fucking hang.

I used to think the grallonesqe 'nuke Islam' bit was silly. But now, I'm beginning to think he's right.