Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Administration & assassinating US citizens? (243 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But once again, you apologists just beg the (10+ / 0-)

    question.

    You're just like the Fox News people who claim that everybody at Gitmo is a terrorist.  Why?  Because they're at Gitmo.  And they maintain this bullshit, even after many, many court decisions and army decisions that have found most of the people at Gitmo NOT to be terrorists.

    You're assuming that anybody who gets targeted by one of these illegal death squads must be a terrorist.  Why?  Because they got targeted by the death squads.

    Once you go there, all law and all democracy is gone.  You've sold your soul to the devil out of fear.  And it's an IRRATIONAL fear, since we face more danger from the U.S. government than we actually face from terrorist groups.

    •  I do fear the Fed and local govs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, willibro

      ...more than I do terrorists. (Maybe fear isn't the right word, I believe my interests are threatened more by the government than by terrorists.)

      However, taking direction action against overseas terrorists does not keep me awake at night.

      On the continuum of dangerous and fucked-up shit the government does, killing-the-enemy is pretty low on my concern scale.

      •  When detainees who have had habeas hearings have (8+ / 0-)

        had judges rule in their favor 28 out of 33 times ... i question the War on Terror's ability to identify Al-Qaeda conspirators.

        •  This is a wonderfully sharp and (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobdevo, marina, willibro, sk7326

          accurate point. But the death squad apologists here are not open to reason, just like all the torture apologists in wingnuttia.

        •  Intelligence v. Evidence (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willibro

          There is an inherent impedance mismatch between evidence law and intelligence assessments. So we should not be surprised that intelligence used to detain enemy combatants is not up to the standards of American evidence law.

          Here is a quote from a law review article that examines the problem.

          Evidence assessment and intelligence assessment are similar but not identical processes, in part because their purposes differ. Both seek truth, though in the case of evidence in the American justice system it is taken as an article of faith that adversarial contestation will generally enhance it, whereas intelligence collection and assessment is often a unilateral endeavor relying on interpretation and reasoned assessment amid uncertainties to guide government actions, and is often conducted and recorded with little regard for eventual courtroom use. Moreover, the law of evidence serves not only to promote accuracy but also to protect justice and fairness; intelligence, by contrast, is generally unconcerned with balancing competing values.

          Gitmo, Habeas Corpus, and Standards of Proof: Viewing the Law Through Multiple Lenses

          •  Your point being? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc

            The way things work is this: If you have intelligence on someone, you can raid their shit and interrogate them. It's probable cause, and can be used to break up imminent threats even without evidence solid enough for conviction. From there the gathering of hard evidence can begin, and if the CIA gave half a shit, they could probably keep track of intel carefully enough to use much if it in court.

            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

            by Jyrinx on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 04:25:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  they maintain it because OBAMA is perpetuating (6+ / 0-)

      it ... the issue is ok with him in charge.  It is pure blind "team player" baloney.  If the policy was wrong under Bush, it was under Bush's successor.  Love or hate the president, that logic is simply idiotic.

      If National Security were the only concern of the founders of this country, we'd still be British.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site