Justice Department's legal case for drone strikes on Americans

that definition applies to Bill Ayers circa 1970.

 

Terrible example. They renounced their US citizenship, formed their own country/government and formed an active professional army. They were killing soldiers, not terrorist.

 

How are the rights of a soldier any different from a terrorist?

 

I don't for a second believe there was any official announcement that all of the confederate soldiers had renounced their citizenship. Al Qaeda takes people of all nations, and they've declared war on the U.S. They've engaged in combat with the U.S. They've attacked U.S. civilians. So if someone joins them and is part of their organization and they get killed in combat, then I don't have a problem with that. I don't think there is a need to justify that.

I think it is an appropriate example to use with the confederates who also declared war with the United States, actively engaged in combat with the United States, and were killed in combat despite having a trial.

 

I stand by what I said. If he was actively engaged in terrorist activities against the United States was killed while doing that, then that would be justified.

 

Four of the senators who joined Rand Paul voted against a ban on indefinite detention of US citizens. Politics as usual.

 

Maybe for those four. How does it make it politics as usual for the others?

 

that's a terrible example but i can still make my point.

the second you easily and willingly give up the bomber's rights you've also give up yours.

some might argue that during war there is no rights but terror has no army, no flag, no boundaries, no centralized leadership. it's impossible to have a conventional war against terrorism and that fact makes the language sketchy.

 

Rand is a unique character. The others are probably only interested in the limelight. Not to make Rand out as a messiah, just that he has some good qualities, muddied by weird ones. Like his dad.

 

I don't think we should give up the bomber's rights. I do think if they are engaged in violence against the nation and get killed in that pursuit, then it's justifiable.

If an armed robber and gunman decides to rob a bank and dies in a shootout with the police, it doesn't mean nobody has the right to a trial by jury. But that gunman died committing a crime. It's considered justified.

You're right terrorism has no army, but it is a crime. And Al-Qaeda did declare war against the United States. They have made attacks against the U.S. military and civilians. So if a person is part of that organization of their own free will, and they die wile acting in conjunction with that organization, I don't see a lack of justification.

That is very different than just allowing the govt. to label anyone a terrorist and then drone strike them to death. I'm against that. Just like I'm against the police labeling someone an armed robber and then shooting them to death.

So just to reiterate, I'm not suggesting anyone have to give up their rights. But taking an active role in a group involved in armed conflict with the U.S. govt. that then gets killed by the U.S. govt. is something that comes with that territory and is justifiable.

 

Disagree. Prove it first. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

I agree 100%

 

Just like the armed robber who's in a shootout with police and gets killed, that replaces the need for a trial. If a guy is in a terrorist convoy with the guy that created the bomb that a terrorist was wearing and tried to use to blow up civilians in an airport, and was acknowledged as being part of Al-Qaeda by Al-Qaeda themselves, then it's not that different than the armed bank robber killed in a shootout with the police.

 

If you can't distinguish the difference between the CSA, a group of states who setup their own form of government, fought as an organized army and had its own uniform and operated somewhat under the rules of war versus a group of individuals who goal is to strike terror, mostly by killing innocent women and children and executing any prisoners, then I suppose there is no point in explaining it further.

Further, after the war, soldiers were not tried as criminals or terrorist or traitors. They were free to go home.

 

"Actively engaged in terrorist activities" (your words) is so vague it's meaningless. It certainly encompasses a lot more than a "shootout".

 

To this point, anyone recall when Rand wanted to criminalize attending naughty speeches? This is especially ironic, given that "speech" was a major reason Awlaki was targeted for assassination by a drone.

It's hard to take the guy that seriously given his convoluted track record.

 

Do you have a perfect track record?

 

Nice ad hominem. Of course I don't. But I'm rarely as dramatically inconsistent as the example above.

 

True, but it does include residing in a terrorist camps and convoys with terrorists who have already tried to blow up civilians on an aircraft, and are by their own admission trying to violently attack the U.S.