Trump's order to fire on civilians is illegal as hell, and already being used to justify murder

[Harry Bosch]

I'll ignore the personal attacks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2c941cf35f1_story.html?utm_term=.fb5c02b5efb8

To be fair, the above was not disclosed for several years after the attack. The issue here is that Obama didn't follow the 4th amendment in delivering justice to Anwar. However, how was he suppose to? How in the world is the US to bring a combatant to trial when they are in a separate country that is at war with the US?

I think being tried in absentia would be acceptable to a panel of three judges. Also give the accused the ability to hire a representative to defend them in absentia (or have a court appointed defender). We are talking about a death sentence, so througral due process should be mandatory.

I don't disagree with you. Obama could have been more through. He wasn't perfect. I never called Obama "saint" as Jason implied. But I would take Obama 1,000 times over Trump. But hopefully we can get back to the thread...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A legal memo written by a Justice Department lawyer doesn't carry the same weight as a judicial ruling. So, Harry, you haven't presented anything yet.

 

[Harry Bosch]

A legal memo written by a Justice Department lawyer doesn't carry the same weight as a judicial ruling. So, Harry, you haven't presented anything yet.

You are goal post changing. You said that Obama had no "oversight". Secondly, if you read the link, the purpose of the memo was to align the action to congress's vote to authorize action against Al-quada. Are you trying to say that congress doesn't have the right to authorize action against a foreign enemy without a "judicial ruling"?

 

[SLD]

All military operations have a legal brief where the rules of engagement are gone over and over again. Lawyers vet each order for legality and have the authority to say that an order is illegal and to so advise the troops. They have no protections if they go outside the scope, and they are informed of such. They will be advised of such.

But some of them may think that the President's order ovrrides the legal requirements and indeed can try and rely on a presidential pardon, which he has the power to do. I can see it happening. Some 18 year old hyped up, not thinking, remembers Trump's words and opens fire illegally.

Of course the President will go back on his word if there’s an uproar over this, saying he never ordered such, and making a dozen other excuses to blame the poor soldier who did open fire. But what does trump care about him?

SLD

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The precedent doesn't have to be the exact same thing. Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't even throwing rocks at the military at the time he was assassinated without even the slightest not to due process. The precedent is that the president doesn't need any sort of justification or process. Thanks Obama.

Is Obama responsible for the precedent?

For example, the CIA attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro repeatedly. If the CIA can legally do that, surely the POTUS can too. But that's a much older precedent. Now, you might say the CIA can't legally do that, regardless of what they actually did. But then, why would the same not apply to the POTUS, regardless of what Obama did?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A legal memo written by a Justice Department lawyer doesn't carry the same weight as a judicial ruling. So, Harry, you haven't presented anything yet.

You are goal post changing. You said that Obama had no "oversight". Secondly, if you read the link, the purpose of the memo was to align the action to congress's vote to authorize action against Al-quada. Are you trying to say that congress doesn't have the right to authorize action against a foreign enemy without a "judicial ruling"?

That lawyer works for Obama. Obama is his oversight. He wrote the memo that Obama ordered him to write. He didn't provide oversight, he provided cover.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was not foreign, he was a US citizen. That is what makes his case entirely different. Congress can declare war, but that is something different from executing a US citizen outside of the zone of hostilities. You don't need a judicial ruling to declare war, but you know that's not what the complaint here is.

When you're finally ready to acknowledge this was an execution of a US citizen outside of the zone of combat, administered and authorized by the president alone with his subordinates providing rationales and cover instead of seeking external oversight, we will be ready to address what the actual issue is. Until then you're ready to ignore the real issue.

Until you're read to acknowledge it, we're stuck on "When Obama did X it was good, when Trump does the same X it is bad."

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Anwar Al-Awlaki was not foreign, he was a US citizen. That is what makes his case entirely different. Congress can declare war, but that is something different from executing a US citizen outside of the zone of hostilities. You don't need a judicial ruling to declare war, but you know that's not what the complaint here is.

But the people in the caravan aren't American. So, why would the precedent be to target an American citizen, rather than a non-citizen? Many were targeted before Al-Awlaki was.

 

[fast]

I see this thread has taken its own course, but back on topic, I have no qualms with meeting an attack with counterattack.

I see it shameful to characterize attackers as merely women and children looking for a better life. When you're a leader and you put people in harms way of an attack, some compartmentalizing is in order. Do not care who is attacking. Do not care whatever else it is that they are doing. Positive spins aside, if you are at risk of harm of injury causing rocks, consider it an attack.

This is our land, and we have a right to defend it. I'm not saying napalm the border on a regular basis until the message "stay the fuck out and go away" sinks in, but if US soldiers on US land are being attacked, and if I have to choose between supporting my president who is supporting what I want (which is to protect us and come back to their families) vs siding with others so overly compassionate that they can't see the evil, well, call me complicit.

 

[ZiprHead]

I see this thread has taken its own course, but back on topic, I have no qualms with meeting an attack with counterattack.

I see it shameful to characterize attackers as merely women and children looking for a better life. When you're a leader and you put people in harms way of an attack, some compartmentalizing is in order. Do not care who is attacking. Do not care whatever else it is that they are doing. Positive spins aside, if you are at risk of harm of injury causing rocks, consider it an attack.

This is our land, and we have a right to defend it. I'm not saying napalm the border on a regular basis until the message "stay the fuck out and go away" sinks in, but if US soldiers on US land are being attacked, and if I have to choose between supporting my president who is supporting what I want (which is to protect us and come back to their families) vs siding with others so overly compassionate that they can't see the evil, well, call me complicit.

Yes, the USA's very own Gaza strip. Defending us from the stroller brigade.

 

[laughing dog]

You are misreading what he is saying. The OP claimed it would be illegal to fire upon civilians outside the US border. Jason is saying the Obama precedent demonstrates such killing would in fact be legal. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't complain about it. In fact, Jason is very clearly complaining/criticizing this precedent.

The precedent does not make it legal - it made it unchallenged.

Moreover, since the circumstances are substantially different, it is not clear it is even a precedent.

 

[laughing dog]

I see this thread has taken its own course, but back on topic, I have no qualms with meeting an attack with counterattack.

I see it shameful to characterize attackers as merely women and children looking for a better life. When you're a leader and you put people in harms way of an attack, some compartmentalizing is in order. Do not care who is attacking. Do not care whatever else it is that they are doing. Positive spins aside, if you are at risk of harm of injury causing rocks, consider it an attack.

This is our land, and we have a right to defend it. I'm not saying napalm the border on a regular basis until the message "stay the fuck out and go away" sinks in, but if US soldiers on US land are being attacked, and if I have to choose between supporting my president who is supporting what I want (which is to protect us and come back to their families) vs siding with others so overly compassionate that they can't see the evil, well, call me complicit.

Unless the President makes a direct order to the military to fire upon people if a rock is thrown, I doubt the military is going to do that. Despite what people think, the military is not filled with bloodthirsty chickenshits.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look, I have criticized this killing ever since it happened. Not only am I well known as one of the few people on this board who is anti-war no matter the party of the president, I am against executive action of this sort no matter the party of the president.

The Anwar killing counts even though it was Saint Obama who did it. He killed a US citizen, outside of a war zone, without any judicial input. Killing a US citizen by the US government can take place in a few very specified ways - self defense by a government agent, judicial approval, that citizen is embedded in a hostile foreign force, etc. The essence is either actively hostile or judicial input.

Anwar was neither. Even you have to admit it.

So now that I have made my case, you are telling me that opposing the execution of Anwar is to the right of Trump? Does that mean you think Trump is to the left of Bernie? Or do you even know what the fuck you think you are saying in the first place?

So. Precedent. US President can kill anyone at any time without any justification. That is what Obama established. That means if Trump actually goes through with his ridiculous plan to fire on the migrants, he is acting on the Anwar precedent established by Obama.

I'm still hoping that there is a chance that you are being sarcastic. But yes, if someone equates Anwar (who murdered innocent civilians) with a bunch of women and children who at best are simply seeking a better economic life - you are to the right of Trump. Secondly, is it really your point that if a person's government engages in an activity that one may or may not approve of that they can't criticize future behavior? America used to officially practice slavery, so American's can't criticize slavery now?

You mentioned Bernie Sanders. Bernie is not a great defender of immigrant rights. However, here is a quote from Sanders: " We are a nation of immigrants. I am the son of an immigrant myself. Their story, my story, our story is a story of America: hard-working families coming to the United States to create a brighter future for their children. The story of immigrants is the story of America, a story rooted in family and fueled by hope. It continues today in families all across the United States."

You are misreading what he is saying. The OP claimed it would be illegal to fire upon civilians outside the US border. Jason is saying the Obama precedent demonstrates such killing would in fact be legal. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't complain about it. In fact, Jason is very clearly complaining/criticizing this precedent.

Jason is speaking from... well... as the two situations are not even remotely related.

Jason is referring to: President Obama targeting an American citizen without trial, for being an imminent terror threat overseas. This opens up a clearly important conversation regarding the lack of justice regarding the death penalty for untried American citizens... but has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

What the OP was about: President Trump allegedly ordering the US military to open fire on civilians (not American citizens) that pose virtually no threat (stones are not a threat to a well armed trooper), which has to be against the a few international treaties.

Jason once again betrays how little he understands about the words nuance and context.

 

[Elixir]

if you are at risk of harm of injury causing rocks, consider it an attack.

This is our land, and we have a right to defend it.

Is your idea of an appropriate defense against people throwing rocks, to shoot them?
That's just bonkers.

Are they on US territory? Are they advancing within US territory? Threatening to overwhelm our defensive capabilities by throwing rocks? That HAS to be it if they constitute a threat to "our land".

How far have we fallen since we were able to defend against Japan's 51 divisions and various special-purpose artillery, cavalry, anti-aircraft, and armored units with a total of 1,700,000 men, plus fleets of state of the art warships and aircraft, while helping quash the Trump er, Nazi threat?

Apparently we've fallen to the point where a couple of thousand unarmed civilians a thousand miles away, on foot and without provisions, have 40% of the country hiding under their beds... sheesh.
#Shameful.

 

[fast]

Is your idea of an appropriate defense against people throwing rocks, to shoot them?
That's just bonkers.

This isn't that hard a concept. If trespassers try to hurt our military, the military have my blessing to hurt the trespassers. If they're not trespassing but still actively trying to harm others, we still need not limit our response to throwing rocks; we can use bigger sticks to show we are not to be fucked with.

As I said, I'm not suggesting we immediately turn to napalm to get the message across, but yeah, some bloodshed in exchange for bloodshed is just fine. When rocks turn to guns, we can ramp things up to air strikes. Yes to excessive force but not to the point of needless overkill. You think rocks cannot cause serious harm? Someone needs to get the message that trying to hurt us is unacceptable. A few gun shots in exchange for lobbing rocks is not exactly egregious overkill. Excessive maybe, but excessive helps to get the point across.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is your idea of an appropriate defense against people throwing rocks, to shoot them?
That's just bonkers.

This isn't that hard a concept. If trespassers try to hurt our military, the military have my blessing to hurt the trespassers. If they're not trespassing but still actively trying to harm others, we still need not limit our response to throwing rocks; we can use bigger sticks to show we are not to be fucked with.

It is incredible how Trump's handlers manipulate you folk. These people are walking through Mexico, thousands already dispersed in Mexico (or seeking asylum) and have shown no evidence they plan on throwing rocks, yet, Trump has you folks acting as if this is a sure thing. That they'll be an angry mob.

 

[JohnG]

Well, thanks to Obama, there is precedent.

Like others have asked, How come you chose Obama as precedent? You could have chosen almost any president in US history. Most if not all have blood on their hands in one way or another.

 

[fast]

Is your idea of an appropriate defense against people throwing rocks, to shoot them?
That's just bonkers.

This isn't that hard a concept. If trespassers try to hurt our military, the military have my blessing to hurt the trespassers. If they're not trespassing but still actively trying to harm others, we still need not limit our response to throwing rocks; we can use bigger sticks to show we are not to be fucked with.

It is incredible how Trump's handlers manipulate you folk. These people are walking through Mexico, thousands already dispersed in Mexico (or seeking asylum) and have shown no evidence they plan on throwing rocks, yet, Trump has you folks acting as if this is a sure thing. That they'll be an angry mob.

Do you even know why the term handlers is being used? It's not a derogatory term per se, but had it been used to refer to obama, it would be so interpreted in such a derogatory manner that it would inflame others to scream racism.

As Darwinism awards are used for, oughtn't it be known that throwing rocks at savage animals come not with likewise repercussions?

 

[JohnG]

This thread is turning crazy. This is an imaginary rock war we’re talking about.

It’s a figment of DTs imagination.

Im not saying no one will get shot, but I seriously doubt any rocks will be thrown.

 

[Axulus]

You are misreading what he is saying. The OP claimed it would be illegal to fire upon civilians outside the US border. Jason is saying the Obama precedent demonstrates such killing would in fact be legal. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't complain about it. In fact, Jason is very clearly complaining/criticizing this precedent.

The precedent does not make it legal - it made it unchallenged.

Moreover, since the circumstances are substantially different, it is not clear it is even a precedent.

I agree, but it seemed like Harry was attacking a strawman and not directly addressing the actual weaknesses of Jason's point. The targeted drone attack of a suspected terrorist with credible plans to harm the US in the future is quite different from some civilians throwing rocks at the US border.

 

[Harry Bosch]

A legal memo written by a Justice Department lawyer doesn't carry the same weight as a judicial ruling. So, Harry, you haven't presented anything yet.

You are goal post changing. You said that Obama had no "oversight". Secondly, if you read the link, the purpose of the memo was to align the action to congress's vote to authorize action against Al-quada. Are you trying to say that congress doesn't have the right to authorize action against a foreign enemy without a "judicial ruling"?

That lawyer works for Obama. Obama is his oversight. He wrote the memo that Obama ordered him to write. He didn't provide oversight, he provided cover.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was not foreign, he was a US citizen. That is what makes his case entirely different. Congress can declare war, but that is something different from executing a US citizen outside of the zone of hostilities. You don't need a judicial ruling to declare war, but you know that's not what the complaint here is.

When you're finally ready to acknowledge this was an execution of a US citizen outside of the zone of combat, administered and authorized by the president alone with his subordinates providing rationales and cover instead of seeking external oversight, we will be ready to address what the actual issue is. Until then you're ready to ignore the real issue.

Until you're read to acknowledge it, we're stuck on "When Obama did X it was good, when Trump does the same X it is bad."

First off, you are the one who brought in Obama to this this thread. And then you keep changing the goal posts to keep your derail alive. Yemen is most certainly in a war zone. And Anwar was a member of al Qaeda. Congress authorized military action against Al Qaeda. When we are at war with a group, we are not under a directive to only attack them at the location of their choosing. Why not just say what your "real issue" is and then move on?