General Discussion

MineralMan

(151,385 posts)

103. You wrote this:

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 10:59 AM

Apr 2015

"If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad they can do it and nobody will raise a stink."

That may be true if you're a enemy combatant or leader in an armed conflict. But that's the only time it's true. Most Americans abroad do not meet that definition, as I'm sure you know. There was also an American hostage along with an Italian hostage killed, but not because our government wanted to kill those hostages. In fact, President Obama was very sorry that happened, and said so very clearly. We apparently did not know they were present.

Even worse, you got your post title wrong. Perhaps you didn't actually read the article you posted closely.

The U.S. Government is not killing American citizens who are abroad willy-nilly. Your quote above is incorrect, and badly so. Here's a more correct statement:

"If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad and are acting as an enemy combatant or leader, they can do it and nobody will raise a stink."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Four NOT Two Americans Were Killed In Drone Strikes [View all] kpete Apr 2015 OP

What's up with the "American in the senior ranks of al Qaeda"? arcane1 Apr 2015 #1

what does that matter ? why should they be treated different than non americans ? JI7 Apr 2015 #2

optics. delrem Apr 2015 #8

+1 Scuba Apr 2015 #35

Superb post. n/t Smarmie Doofus Apr 2015 #58

They are enemy combatants.... Historic NY Apr 2015 #15

What field of combat were they on? metalbot Apr 2015 #44

...say the unnamed, unseen judge and executioner. Orsino Apr 2015 #67

No one is disputing that the two Gadahn and Farouq were members of Al Qaeda. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #69

Members who had done what to merit death, exactly? Orsino Apr 2015 #72

Treason? Action_Patrol Apr 2015 #79

Assisting how? n/t Orsino Apr 2015 #81

If you join Al Qaeda in any capacity Action_Patrol Apr 2015 #85

According to whom? Orsino Apr 2015 #88

This is textbook. Action_Patrol Apr 2015 #97

It can't be textbook without a criminal case and evidence. Orsino Apr 2015 #104

Enjoy your outrage. Action_Patrol Apr 2015 #106

Would you have any sympathy for someone wrongly accused of assisting al-Qaeda? Orsino Apr 2015 #107

Wrongly accused? Action_Patrol Apr 2015 #108

Well, for that we have the word of our government, which already executed several people... Orsino Apr 2015 #110

I don't believe they were there delivering pizza Action_Patrol Apr 2015 #116

I don't either, not really. Orsino Apr 2015 #117

Agreed and big hugs. Action_Patrol Apr 2015 #118

One a propagandist and the other a second-in-command. NuclearDem Apr 2015 #112

So we are told. But what did they do, exactly? Orsino Apr 2015 #113

Right, to be a propagandist and a second-in-command NuclearDem Apr 2015 #114

Well, you don't have to do anything to be accused of it. Orsino Apr 2015 #115

Al Qaeda said these guys held those roles. Heck, Gadahn himself said he held that role. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #125

Uh-huh. Orsino Apr 2015 #139

If they were in custody as opposed to traveling with geek tragedy Apr 2015 #140

Reality is the problem. Orsino Apr 2015 #141

no, the problem is that "due process' is a very elastic concept that means VASTLY geek tragedy Apr 2015 #142

You're quoting the law as currently applied (and withheld). Orsino Apr 2015 #143

So, you believe that American citizens should be able to join armed enemies in a war zone geek tragedy Apr 2015 #145

The only instances of privilege in ths equation are that of our government... Orsino Apr 2015 #146

what due process would you require for those who are embedded with enemy forces? geek tragedy Apr 2015 #147

Some goddamned accountability, at a minimum. Orsino Apr 2015 #148

that's not an answer. Arrest is not possible as they are embeded with an armed militia in a war zone geek tragedy Apr 2015 #149

Bullshit. We capture militants all the time. Orsino Apr 2015 #150

There is no due process right to guaranteed safety while joining the enemy geek tragedy Apr 2015 #152

So the law would have us believe. n/t Orsino Apr 2015 #155

you're free to invent your own definition that includes a free pony for every geek tragedy Apr 2015 #156

Very good reason, indeed. Orsino Apr 2015 #158

Right to a trial is guaranteed in the Constitution. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #17

doesn't that apply to non US Citizens also ? JI7 Apr 2015 #18

Not during war. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #20

Basically. When people join an armed enemy of the US geek tragedy Apr 2015 #42

Agreed still_one Apr 2015 #98

There is no right to trial for non-custodial combatants. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #23

See my post #22. I think I am agreeing with you. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #25

Yes....I think we are in agreement. As for the hostages, it's my understanding that the US had msanthrope Apr 2015 #26

Very good. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #29

The AUMF of 9/18/2001, pursuant to the War Powers Act, does not suspend habeas....the msanthrope Apr 2015 #30

Agreed. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #31

Who gets to decide who is a non-custodial combatant? metalbot Apr 2015 #45

Taking command roles of authority within Al Qaeda and physically joining Al Qaeda combatants geek tragedy Apr 2015 #61

u.n resolution 1267 is a pretty good msanthrope Apr 2015 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author geek tragedy Apr 2015 #40

".....arrested, brought back to the US and tried for treason." EX500rider Apr 2015 #105

See my post 22. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #120

Does that mean we cannot attack foreign fighters in their presence? hack89 Apr 2015 #144

No. See my post #22. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #153

Sounds perfectly reasonable - thanks. nt hack89 Apr 2015 #154

As I understand it, this was a "signature" strike... Adrahil Apr 2015 #157

It's just a stupid piece of paper, kpete. Look, I get it. closeupready Apr 2015 #3

So you think they have the legal right to shoot at US servicepeople geek tragedy Apr 2015 #39

K&R The president of the United States has a "KILL LIST." woo me with science Apr 2015 #4

I'm pretty good with the President killing off Al Qaeda. And I agree with the widow of the US msanthrope Apr 2015 #27

+++ still_one Apr 2015 #99

Careful, someone might send an alert on your post. Maedhros Apr 2015 #128

At least they weren't waterboarded philosslayer Apr 2015 #5

If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad they can do it and nobody will raise a stink EX500rider Apr 2015 #6

blogs are legit since 2007! snooper2 Apr 2015 #7

There are some peeps I don't consider Americans. Be gone! babylonsister Apr 2015 #9

and because you believe the way you do PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #10

Post removed Post removed Apr 2015 #12

i assume nothing PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #14

WAR! elleng Apr 2015 #16

Habeas corpus can be suspended by the president in times of insurrection. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #22

The Authority to Suspend gladium et scutum Apr 2015 #34

Habeas corpus is irrelevant in a theater of active combat. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #38

I understand that n/t gladium et scutum Apr 2015 #41

Is Pakistan currently a theater of active combat? metalbot Apr 2015 #46

Af-Pak is considered a theater of combat. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #53

I'm slightly confused metalbot Apr 2015 #78

If this guy were sipping capuccinos in a sidewalk cafe in Rome or Beirut, this would geek tragedy Apr 2015 #82

What's the formal list of places that are theaters of combat? metalbot Apr 2015 #109

there is no law without facts. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #111

A non-custodial combatant killed in this manner has been given due process. You assume that msanthrope Apr 2015 #24

They were not denied due process by the govt. GGJohn Apr 2015 #48

by George Bush era rules. PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #52

Bush didn't change the rules for enemies engaged in armed hostilities. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #56

we have troops getting shot at in Pakistan now? PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #60

So you are making up your own facts to justify your complaint that AQ was treated unfairly. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #64

honestly, you know what I question? PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #73

This is not Iraq. AQ are the ones who massacred 3000 people on US soil. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #75

as was posted a couple days ago PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #80

Well, you are certainly right to be skeptical that the whole truth has been told (it has not) geek tragedy Apr 2015 #84

I can agree with this. PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #91

They share a lot of the same tacitcs--hostage-taking, suicide tactics, threats to harm others etc nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #92

And continued and escalated by President Obama. GGJohn Apr 2015 #63

Gadahn was not a combatant - he was a propagandist. Maedhros Apr 2015 #129

that's fucked up JI7 Apr 2015 #13

They were in the theater of combat in enemy ranks. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #37

I count three Americans Renew Deal Apr 2015 #11

And they covered it up for three months. nt bananas Apr 2015 #19

I go to Germany and join Hitler's Nazi SS?? Hulk Apr 2015 #21

because terrorists have rights hfojvt Apr 2015 #28

False analogy. Maedhros Apr 2015 #130

Weird and incoherent outrage doesn't help us think clearly struggle4progress Apr 2015 #32

I hope that drone is properly ashamed of itself for hoodwinking our president. Orsino Apr 2015 #33

They weren't the specific targets, just happened geek tragedy Apr 2015 #36

...andy anyone within a few hundred yards or so... oh well?! tk2kewl Apr 2015 #43

Not unless they dropped daisy cutters nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #50

because drones have pinpoint accuracy tk2kewl Apr 2015 #51

No, killing AQ is not terrorism. nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #54

but killing innocents is... tk2kewl Apr 2015 #59

the innocents that died here were not known to be present. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #68

fog of war is a great excuse tk2kewl Apr 2015 #70

no that's not the definition of terrorism. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #74

nice to see you have neat little boxes to sort the killings into tk2kewl Apr 2015 #76

there is nothing neat about this subject matter, but that doesn't mean geek tragedy Apr 2015 #77

Accuracy of what? My comments or drone strikes? I don't follow... tk2kewl Apr 2015 #83

Assertions without evidence are not much of an argument. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #87

really... you can't think of any on your own? tk2kewl Apr 2015 #94

why would Obama care about intimidating goat herders in Pakistan? nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #96

This message was self-deleted by its author Whiskeytide Apr 2015 #89

My thoughts on all this are all over the place... Whiskeytide Apr 2015 #89

there are a few issues specific to drones--especially w/r/t operators not being geek tragedy Apr 2015 #95

If you join al-Queda you're no longer an American. PeteSelman Apr 2015 #47

The Constitution limits the actions of our government, it doesn't provide privileges to citizens. Maedhros Apr 2015 #131

Didn't limit anything from my perspective. PeteSelman Apr 2015 #135

I smell something PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #136

Oh really super sleuth? PeteSelman Apr 2015 #137

Enjoy your hate! Maedhros Apr 2015 #138

Disgusted by Obama on many levels now. cwydro Apr 2015 #49

So you think we should drop flowers and love letters on Al Qaeda? geek tragedy Apr 2015 #57

My post was clearly written. cwydro Apr 2015 #62

Oh, I work in a very sane environment where people do not say idiotic nonsense geek tragedy Apr 2015 #65

Now who is writing gibberish lol? cwydro Apr 2015 #121

you said you were 'disgusted' at the news of two senior AQ operatives being killed nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #122

Turncoats don't have special protections. TeeYiYi Apr 2015 #55

In a declared war, yes. Maedhros Apr 2015 #132

"We killed some folks..." elias49 Apr 2015 #66

Why am I seeing headlines that say 4 Americans were killed when one was an 'Italian National'? PoliticAverse Apr 2015 #71

3 americans, two al qaeda. as i read. and ya, i see a difference between hostage or innocent, seabeyond Apr 2015 #86

Probably because the poster did not actually read the article. MineralMan Apr 2015 #102

I guess it depends how one views AQ still_one Apr 2015 #93

Two of those were legitimate targets. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2015 #101

You wrote this: MineralMan Apr 2015 #103

in fairness, that was from the blog post he was quoting nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #124

In fairness, the CNN link is at the top of the post. MineralMan Apr 2015 #127

you said, We apparently did not know they were present. questionseverything Apr 2015 #151

not to mention other important lives destroyed bigtree Apr 2015 #119

that's a much more compelling concern--the hundreds of Pakistanis who didn't deserve geek tragedy Apr 2015 #123

There may be many innocents DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #126

Not innocent, but still deserving of due process. Maedhros Apr 2015 #133

Because two were AQ, and their deaths are actually a GOOD thing? Blue_Tires Apr 2015 #134