Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

The other shoe just dropped - Justice Dept rules it can kill americans

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties Issues' started by opto_isolator, Feb 4, 2013.

  1. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    You are very naive, sir.

    No, I did not post that "it's either kill them or they get a free pass." Which of my words said that?

    Read my post again. Here is what I said. If you make the rule that no American giving comfort and aid to an enemy in a foreign country, a traitor, having become an enemy combatant, will be targeted, the enemy will take advantage of that immunity.

    Have you ever heard that our enemies use non-combatants as human shields against attack? Have you?

    Our rules of engagement say we must avoid non-combatant casualties. Have you heard that? Do you agree with that rule?

    My scenario is not pretend. The scenario is real. It happens every day somewhere. Bad guys use non-combatants as protection against attack. Non-combatants only work if there are a great number of them, theoretically.

    Now, if the same protection can be gained with just one or two individuals, that is more convenient, more mobile. Make an American a high profile "leader" in your movement.

    Lets say you, G19G20, get to say the US has a new rule that no American can be killed without due process. It doesn't matter how egregious their behavior. They can directly order an attack on US citizens. Even if the attack is carried out and many Americans are killed, they cannot be harmed without due process in an American court in the United States.

    Is that what your rule would say?

    G19G20, do you believe that if that rule of yours is in effect, that it is one of the Rules of Engagement for the US military, that the real leaders of terrorist organizations would not protect themselves with American sympathizers, converts to their cause?

    You said, "We've arrested a crapload of AQ and other terrorist orgs in other countries and brought them to trial, convicted and sentenced. We've even killed them without the advanced knowledge of the host country (referring to OBL of course) when we could have just arrested."

    Name the crapload of AQ and other terrorist organizations we have captured in other countries and brought them into the US and tried them.

    The "them" that we've killed when we could have "just arrested", who were they?
  2. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was never Obama killing any of those guys.

    But you probably wouldn't understand that strikes on military targets during wartime don't normally go through the POTUS.

  3. happyguy

    happyguy Man, I'm Pretty

    Obama approved and directed the strikes against the American citizens that we have been discussing. Hell, he has a damned kill list. Where have you been?

    Look, if you trust Obama's judgement, just say so. I don't.

    Comrade Happyguy :)
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  4. So, then, you admit that the answer to the question is that no, you don't understand how military orders are issued? Because the President does not sign off every time someone pulls the trigger. If so, he would never have time to do anything else, EVER.

    Carter didn't do it at Desert One. Reagan didn't do it in Grenada. Bush didn't do it in Kuwait. Clinton didn't do it in the Balkans. Bush didn't do it in Iraq. And Obama doesn't do it in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

    What you're confusing is approving a Rule of Engagement, not approving specific orders. Those are not the same thing.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  5. happyguy

    happyguy Man, I'm Pretty

    Whatever :upeyes:

    If you want to parse language to make a point, knock yourself out. It just shows you have nothing else to argue.

    I know you aren't saying that Obama didn't personally sign off on killing Anwar al-Aulaqi and of killing his son as well? Seriously? Are you? Because if you are, you are seriously misinformed.

    Comrade Happyguy :)
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  6. Some guy from BFE, North Dakota that ran off to play jihad isn't the same as Osama bin Laden.

    Hell, even with bin Laden, after giving the "Go" order, do you think Obama was sitting in the SitRoom with a mic tied into the ear-pieces on the SEALs frequency, telling them "Turn left there.....up those stairs..."?

    It's not parsing language when it's the difference between being right and being wrong. It's called "attention to detail".
  7. happyguy

    happyguy Man, I'm Pretty

    You've lost sight of the subject of the thread, but you are welcome to go off on tangents if you like, secure in the knowledge that you are right.

    Comrade Happyguy :)
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  8. Cute, I'm responding directly to comments that you make and *I'VE* lost sight of the subject??

    Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

    The subject of the thread remains the same - The US has authorized the use of deadly force against citizens of the US overseas that have decided they are going to be terrorist. The President approved the rule of engagement, but is not commanding troops from the Oval Office. Rhetoric and vehemence against one person doesn't change these facts.
  9. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)

    Your ignorance of how things work is showing.