Here is what is confusing.

[mmonk]

We kidnap Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and torture him (and are told he was the mastermind of 9/11). We conducted a raid and could have captured Osama bin Laden at gun point but summarily executed him on the spot. He kidnapped Masri and tortured him (but he ended up being innocent of any crime), and we assassinated Awlaki (a radical cleric and US citizen).

What are our standards of conduct? Do we have any rules other than what a President decides? What determines assassination, torture, indefinite detention, tribunal, or release? Are there any processes? Therein lies the questions some of us have.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kennah]

2. When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. --R. Milhous Nixon.

[mercymechap]

10. So our men in Iraq, Afghanistan, some dying to eradicate

the terrorists doesn't count for anything? Isn't that what it's all about? Kill the masterminds responsible for 9/11? I don't understand the confusion going on here.

[Kennah]

11. Sorry Rush. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11. Hope the Kochs paid you well.

[mmonk]

15. A quote that has ended up being true.

[defendandprotect]

18. +1 -- Amazing that Tricky Dicky could have said that even then and not been arrested -- !!

For Treason --

he was an old hand at it -- Prescott Bush's boy --

His deal with Prescott and the Repug gang was he'd get $50,000 a year over

his Congressional salary --

How much crime did that buy, we might ask?

[PufPuf23]

4. Perhaps POTUS Obama is out of the loop?

But wants re-election?

[teddy51]

7. Yep, but then we are right back at square one. If not Obama, then whom?

We cannot allow the nut jobs on the right to gain the WH, so we are sort of screwed it would seem.

[defendandprotect]

19. Please stop pushing the "we have no place to go" excuse --

There's always someplace to go --

and we should begin by finding a challenger to Obama for 2012 --

[NYC_SKP]

5. I don't think it's ever really been reduced into specific policy by any agency or administration...

...I believe policy and procedure has been situational, and reactive, and left somewhat vague on purpose.

[polly7]

6. It IS confusing.

Low ranking members or even those rumoured to be members of AQ are captured, locked up and in some cases tortured for information. Yet those highest ranking, and who could presumably be of much more value regarding insight into 911 and terrorism, are killed outright. Why?

[RC]

8. They know too much. We are the real terrorists.

[Mnemosyne]

12. ... +1000 n/t

[defendandprotect]

20. +1000% --- !!

[AngkorWot]

9. It's not that confusing.

We try to catch the terrorists and if we can't, we kill them.

[Lucinda]

13. bin Laden. n/t

[mmonk]

16. Who determines that? Was Masri a terrorist?

And all sorts of ad hoc punishments have been carried out. What legal process has worked this out? What legal oversight has been constructed?

[Fearless]

14. Those in power do what they want to further their goals.

That's why the wars continue long after any possible goal was reached/removed.

[rustydog]

23. Nice out, possibly true. How about: This does happen, we

are tired of it and it isn't going to happen any more.
Arrest our enemies. treat them like common criminals, remove the martyr status and show the world we are a Nation of Law and Order.

[Fearless]

24. I would only say arrest those who do harm to others not just those who are enemies. Otherwise +1

[pintobean]

17. Kidnap? How about captured?

[mmonk]

22. Some are kidnapped, others captured.

Some are innocent while others are murderers. There seems to be no modus operandi.

[G_j]

21. great questions

that will NOT be answered.

[treestar]

25. Well, find out about it

There is a lot of research to be done here.

For instance, find the court decision where Awlaki's father tried to sue to get him taken off the list. That would give us a lot of information on the state of the law.