So the Windbag questioned if Bush/Cheney were war criminals

[Whitewing]

because they knowingly tortured detainees.

I watched the hearing in which Col. Wilkerson testified- and altho he said there is no direct evidence to Bush's involvement- he said there is that Cheney was well aware and approving what was happening... He also testified that he believed that when all the evidence came out- Cheney and several in the Administration (Rumsfeld, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, William J. Haynes II, John Yoo; and Timothy E. Flanigan,) would be indicted by the World Courts in some countries as War Criminals for authorizing the illegal behavior - and said he would advise they not travel outside the US boundaries....

Also in one of the hearings it became apparent that the Administration knew they were breaking the law- because on one document they granted Advanced Immunity--- immunity ahead of the Fact to anyone caught- something no-one, not even King George, can legally do....

But daily its shown he could care less about little things like laws and the Constitution....

No wonder the Supreme Court is seeking oversight over a runaway Administration....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26555&highlight=detainees

Of course, that was back in January of 2008 when Bush was Prez. Now things are much different. The Messiah is Prez and he doesn't torture detainees......he only kills American citizens without presenting a single shred of evidence of their guilt.

Waterboard a ferener and you're a war criminal. Kill an American citizen without a day in court and you're a hero.

My understanding is that al Awlaki is one of those dual citizens the US continues to stupidly allow exist... Claiming both Yemeni and US citizenship...

Looks to me like the old Wanted-Dead or Alive that has a long precedent in our country with both citizens and noncitizens...

And it looks to me like he definitely has had oversight and that this is not just on the word of one person (President Obama) -- and that he has been declared an International Criminal not only by the US National Security Council- but also NATO and foreign courts...

Even US civil law allows all means of force be used when arresting a criminal who's escape presents a danger to the public....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50764&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=assassination&start=12

Thanks OT, you really are the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of difference between physically torturing over a long period of time someone who is a prisoner "in custody" which is contrary to all international laws and treaties--- and using all force necessary to bring in an Internationally wanted dangerous criminal that is on the run and avoiding arrest- and has indicated he would not be taken alive...

Even US civil law allows all means of force be used when arresting a criminal who's escape presents a danger to the public....

Officials: U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 1:01 PM EST, Fri September 30, 2011

Sanaa, Yemen (CNN) -- Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki -- an American whose fluency in English and technology made him one of the top terrorist recruiters in the world -- was killed Friday in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, U.S. and Yemeni government officials told CNN.
------------
Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, said al-Awlaki was on a "special list" of individuals attempting to attack the United States that is approved by the National Security Council and the president. Targeting those individuals is legal and legitimate, said Ruppersberger, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who was in Yemen two months ago.

Anwar al-Awlaki has had years to turn himself in on all the worldwide warrants out there for him- and have his day in court.... He made his own choice on which Judge he wanted to see first...

Whitewing- instead of whining- you should be giving Obama and all the white hat guys an ATTA-BOY for bringing another killer to the gates of judgement...
The white hat boys seem to be doing a good job of hunting down these criminals- including Osama....

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/10/dead-captured-and-wanted/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Whitewing]

No whining here Fatman.

I'm actually reveling in the fact that your Messiah has embraced and even expanded many of the policies that you and other "prinicipled" liberals wailed about for so long causing you to call him names like King George because he repeatedly "trampled the Constitution".

Your silence in regards to Obama's actions since taking office speaks volumes about who you really are OT. The word is spelled h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.

Since you and the truth are usually complete strangers and you've obviously never met or seen a principled liberal (including when you look in the mirror), here's what one sounds like in the article link posted below. You might want to read it if you can bear the pain.

What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki -- including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry's execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists -- criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

I venture to say that had G. W. Bush done what B. H. Obama did today, you would have screamed from the rooftops that he was indeed a King and that the nation and Constitution were lost.

Today? Well, let's just say that all is swell in Fatman Land.

 

[Whitewing]

Remember when you so proudly displayed your Libertarian credentials by highlighting these positions, Fatman?

The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. (That last sentence you also underlined). The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war.

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid.

I especially like that last one you highlighted Fatman because today you're not only in favor of denying due process to an American citizen, you're in favor of entering another nation's terroritory (one not at war with America) to kill that American citizen....an American citizen who has never been charged with a crime in a single American court of law.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45886&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=due+process&start=12

As I said, the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Anonymous]

I know of no Libertarian platform that is against going after wanted criminals- especially criminals that are alledged to have committed crimes against the US- up to and including treason...Or using whatever force needed to bring them to justice...

He was well given his chance for due process- but chose not to utilyze it...
Just like any dangerous criminal- if they choose not to turn themselves in to take advantage of our court system - then whatever force necessary- up to and including lethal force must be used to stop them..

On April 6, 2010 The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.

Whats wrong Whitewing-- you been seeing some predator drones hovering overhead ??

Is there a reason you don't live in the US anymore :???:

 

[Whitewing]

Fatman, I don't seem to be getting through to you on the subject.

You make the really stupid statement that you know of no Libertarian platform that goes against bringing wanted criminals to justice as justification for the assassination that took place today. Are you now going to try to sell me on the idea that the Libertarian party would have no problem with the issuance of assassination order against an American citizen by an American president based on what some court half way around the globe has determined?.......on an American citizen who has never been tried nor convicted in an American court of law? Sorry, I'm not buying that one.

Also, if the CIA, US Military, National Security Council and the POTUS now have the legal authority to kill any American citizen they choose "because he's now on a list", where does that power end?

You keep calling the guy a dangerous and wanted criminal but have yet to post a single link to a single charge leveled against him that was substantiated in a court of law following the Constitution of the United States. You don't have a problem with that?

Let's be honest here. The POTUS was his judge, jury, and executioner and the man was killed by the US Military in another nation at the orders of Barack Obama. That you find no problem with this is amazing based on your numerous posts whining about King George and his abuses of the Constitution.

I've always been able to distinguish between the rights afforded by the US Consititution to legal US citizens versus those afforded to citizens of other countries. Some argue that all human beings should be granted the same rights under our Constitution as an American citizen. I don't. But in all honesty I could not believe that Obama himself took the extrodinary step of ordering the assassination of an American citizen without presenting a single shred of evidence in a single US court against the man.

Again, Mr. Libertarian, that you look the other way on this issue is telling.....not surprising, but telling.

 

[flounder]

seems there are others that think bush, cheney, Halliburton, and more, should all be charged with war crimes $$$



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush


http://www.bing.com/search?q=seems+there+are+others+that+think+bush%2C+cheney%2C+Halliburton%2C+and+more%2C+should+all+be+charged+with+war+crimes...&go=&qs=n&sk=&form=QBLH


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=nleGTsizGeGHsgLykd2bDw&ved=0CB0QBSgA&q=war+crimes+bush+cheney+halliburton+iraq&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=43a2a4b3e26d172a&biw=1024&bih=664


http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGdSMjWIZOXWAAmDFXNyoA?p=war%20crimes%20in%20iraq%20bush%2C%20cheney%2C%20Halliburton&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-450-s


http://www.mamma.com/result.php?q=war+crimes+bush+cheney+halliburtin



http://search.lycos.com/?loc=searchbox&tab=web&query=war+crimes+bush+cheney+halliburtin

 

[Anonymous]

Also, if the CIA, US Military, National Security Council and the POTUS now have the legal authority to kill any American citizen they choose "because he's now on a list", where does that power end?

The US Military has for years had execution powers for treason/sabatoge/spying- following a military tribunal- made up of whatever senior officers are available at the time.....

And it appears to me the NSA is about as senior as you can get - and offers the oversight to make it where it is not the actions or decision of just one or two persons- but a decision of the group.....A group that apparently saw enough evidence to believe he needed to be stopped - Dead or Alive....

Not surprisingly the only ones besides you I hear screaming about this terrorist being taken out are the ACLU and Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR-- and a couple far rightwingers or far left wingers...And some of those are ones running for President so will whine about anything now....

Maybe they need to set up a special court to try these folks in abstentia- but that adds more bureaucracy....

So do you believe we should do nothing with these dual nationallity folks- and just let them keep planning up plots to kill Americans ?

 

[Whitewing]

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

And again here:

"Did you not see the article where Obama is asking for Legislative/Judicial oversight- so no one man is ever Judge/Jury/and Executioner again... "

And then there's today:

"Whitewing- instead of whining- you should be giving Obama and all the white hat guys an ATTA-BOY for bringing another killer to the gates of judgement...

The white hat boys seem to be doing a good job of hunting down these criminals- including Osama.... "

:???: :???: :???:

 

[Whitewing]

So do you believe we should do nothing with these dual nationallity folks- and just let them keep planning up plots to kill Americans ?

Strawman argument you old fool, and you know it.

I'm not defending the man, I'm defending the Constitution...something you so often claimed was of importance to you....that is, until your guy decides to trample it himself. Remember when I commented that you've become the queen of nuance? You're doing it again.

So in your world, the NSA, without any evidence presented publicly, without any rules of evidence that we know of, can order the execution of an American citizen and that's fine because they're "senior" and a "group".

:lol:

Please keep talking on this subject. It's fascinating watching the hole deepen.

 

[Anonymous]

On April 6, 2010 The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.

 

[Whitewing]

Maybe they need to set up a special court to try these folks in abstentia- but that adds more bureaucracy....

Yeah, who needs all that bureaucracy stuff when we're talking about upholding the Constitution and the ordered assassination of an American citizen.

Just kill the farker and be done with it.

 

[Whitewing]

On April 6, 2010 The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.

Bush's Justice Department also told him waterboarding wasn't torture and that he could hold suspected enemy combatants indefinitely without trail.

I'm sure you were fine with that. Right?

 

[Texan]

All I have ever asked for- and think the Constitution requires is a 3rd party review of their detention- and not a President or any one person acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner as was the case with King George...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=385777

 

[Whitewing]

All I have ever asked for- and think the Constitution requires is a 3rd party review of their detention- and not a President or any one person acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner as was the case with King George...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=385777

He's already nuanced that one Texan with his "group" comment about the NSA. All is swell in FatManLand.

 

[Texan]

Under King George- if Cheney or Rumsfeld designated you a terrorist- you were one- and from there on had no rights and from then on need not be treated under any of the laws of the land or the civilized nations of the world .... :shock:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=368683

 

[Whitewing]

Under King George- if Cheney or Rumsfeld designated you a terrorist- you were one- and from there on had no rights and from then on need not be treated under any of the laws of the land or the civilized nations of the world .... :shock:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=368683

We don't need no stinkin' laws of the land, we have the NSA, that most senior and trusted group. Oh, and there's the "list". If they say you're a terrorist and you get put on their list, then by God you're going down.

 

[Anonymous]

On April 6, 2010 The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.

Bush's Justice Department also told him waterboarding wasn't torture and that he could hold suspected enemy combatants indefinitely without trail.

I'm sure you were fine with that. Right?

A couple of attorneys in the DOJ said he could (the AG didn't even sign off on it)- but the majority of military and civilian legal folks, including almost all in the international arenas said it was not only probably a violation of US law but was a violation of International Laws- which the US had signed onto... The US hanged Japanese for waterboarding American prisoners during WWII...John McCain said it was torture- and outlawed by International laws and treaties...
What it did was lower the US leadership image to the rest of the world- when we are always chastising other folks for atrocities- but doing them ourselves...A do as we say- not as we do image...

Bush got his teat in the wringer with holding the enemy combatants when he gave none of the captives any oversight/appeal opportunity... The courts all ruled against him that they could not be held on only his and/or Cheney's say so- and told him they needed some type of oversight to follow up with- either military tribunals or civil trials.... And the real problem with courts arouse when even after being told that- Bush didn't do it....

 

[Steve]

On April 6, 2010 The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.

personally I am grateful the terrorist is dead... but doesn't this part of the comment bother you?

for a legal source,... the New York Times..

for a standard,... International law?



for reference shouldn't our government look at our LAW.

n 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities.
In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.
Executive Order 11905 was revised.138 In 1978, President Carter broadened the scope of the ban, newly numbered Executive Order 12306,139 by adding the phrase "those acting on behalf of the United States," to the text and deleting the word "political."140

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

The U.S. government was the first to formulate a legal code of military conduct that was to be issued to the troops in the field. During the Civil War, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton solicited guidance and suggestions from a variety of scholars as to what form these regulations should take, but left the task of writing them to Doctor Francis Lieber, a professor at Columbia University.28 Lieber's code was reviewed, amended, and finally issued by President Abraham Lincoln in [*PG7]1863 as The U.S. Army's General Orders #100. Five thousand copies were printed and distributed to the officers of the armies of both the Union and the Confederacy.29 Article 148 of the Order states:

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

our law is clear, and has been since the Civil war.

 

[Whitewing]

Well, that all certainly justifies your non-concern about trampling on the Constitution as it regards assassinating an American citizen without due process.

I see your point OT.