Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 10, 2014

An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year. The CIA drones watching him cannot strike, because he's a US citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Assuming that the intel is correct, perhaps we should just send him an invite to an American court... and some roses.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-10 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

They probably are waiting for a chance to shoot at the non-citizen standing right next to him.

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-10 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Assuming that the intel is correct"

the argument being asses are made, not born...

#3 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-02-10 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3

A made man.

How could it possibly be correct? The world is a safe place and everyone loves us.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-10 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hasn't he got any innocent children in nearby coffee shops?

#5 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-02-10 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#5

Pitiful hatred.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-10 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of senseless wars against people who would have no quarrel with us if we minded our own business and tended to our own issues within our own borders? Yes, I have hatred for that.

#7 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-02-10 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then hand the drone over to military controllers, problem solved.

#8 | Posted by willowby at 2014-02-10 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

My question is how many al-Qaeda members that are living in a country that refuses US military action on their soil are also US citizens? Is this article tipping the guy off a little?

#9 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-02-11 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Publish his name location and evidence against him. Setup a bounty website. Privatize justice and save a ton of cash.

#10 | Posted by bored at 2014-02-11 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

#7

So, American citizens in al-Qaeda are justified in bombing us, and we should just let them do it.

Nice.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hasn't he got any innocent children in nearby coffee shops?

#5 | Posted by zeropointnrg

So at what age do they qualify for strap-on bombs? Terrorist training?

#12 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-02-11 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

They probably are waiting for a chance to shoot at the non-citizen standing right next to him.
#2 | Posted by Diablo

Indeed. He's bound to attend a wedding soon.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-11 02:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

So at what age do they qualify for strap-on bombs? Terrorist training?

So, when did this adolescent strap on a bomb?

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-11 02:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just do what Obama has done to others:

IRS audit

#15 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-11 02:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, American citizens in al-Qaeda are justified in bombing us, and we should just let them do it.
Nice.
#11 | Posted by Corky

Hail victory!

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-11 02:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

He's a marked man. If the U.S. wants him dead, they'll find a way. That conundrum mentioned in the article is probably how to keep their hands clean doing it.

CIA Black Ops, anybody

#17 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-02-11 07:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

They've got enough intel, allegedly, to kill him.

They don't have enough intel, or haven't been bothered to, actually put together a court case against a US citizen.

Our government should be required to follow due process. It looks they will, despite not wanting to. That's not a bad thing.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-11 07:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Better hope the Terrorist is a member of the Tea Party.

#19 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 07:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Our government should be required to follow due process.
#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-11 07:28 AM

Yes, as we always do during armed conflict. Why, I remember all of the battlefield courts-martial during the Civil War before every Union soldier was allowed to discharge a weapon at a Confederate.

If Obama thinks that kow-towing to the Repubs and their newly found concern for civil liberties is going to somehow insulate him from GOP criticism in the event of another attack on us, he's more gullible than Charlie Brown going in for another punt.

#20 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-11 08:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Drone him accidentally...

#21 | Posted by tiger150 at 2014-02-11 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

We talk too much we have too many squealers. They should have *quietly shot him in the head as soon as they discovered that he is planning to kill innocents.

#22 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2014-02-11 08:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Propaganda. The military has never allowed any law to get in the way of mass murder. i.e. nothing more than an agency turf war.

I have no idea what this particular case is, but it wouldn't be surprising if the whole thing was a set up in the first place.

#23 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-11 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Smells like someone is running guns again.

#24 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#23

"It's a Conspiracy!"

"Hey, who's Bogarting the Xanax?"

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Go all Munich on him, a la the Israelis.

#26 | Posted by tiger150 at 2014-02-11 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Go all Israeli on him like Munich" means waiting for him to attack, then retaliating.
That's not what we are planning.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-11 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

.... "American Al Qaeda Member Planning Attacks"

**** Translation: This means the "CIA" is planning more FALSE FLAG ATTACKS against America!!!

#28 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-02-11 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hasn't he got any innocent children in nearby coffee shops?

#5 | Posted by zeropointnrg

I think the traditional 1000 plane carpet bombing of whatever community he is in should suffice to take care of him, and any women and children around. It's what Ike would have done.

Or, as the Right would say during Gulf1, kill them all and let Allah sort 'em out. The good times...

#29 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-02-12 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Our government should be required to follow due process.
#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-11 07:28 AM
Yes, as we always do during armed conflict. Why, I remember all of the battlefield courts-martial during the Civil War

#20 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2014-02-11 08:31 AM | FLAG:

You're attacking a strawman bringing up the GOP. I don't care what they think. American Citizens get due process unless they are caught in the act of a violent crime and can not be apprehended safely. Armed conflict does not change this, your own example, the Civil War set a powerful precedent about this. Indianapolis Treason Trials, 1864.

From the SC at the time:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-12 07:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Corky's so butthurt over the fact that the US government can't simply kill Americans without establishing evidence first. The biggest threat to America is people like Corky.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2014-02-12 08:36 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

American Citizens get due process unless they are caught in the act of a violent crime and can not be apprehended safely. #30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-12 07:46 AM

Assuming that your rule applies, it leaves quite a bit of room for arguing what constitutes a violent crime. For instance, are we justified in executing someone without trial if we have a sniper located in an uncooperative nation a mile away from the target who is seconds away from calling in a nuclear strike?

If your answer to that question is no, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion, as we have a fundamental difference of opinion. If your answer is yes, then let me know how many minutes away from an act of war or mass murder we have to be before the use of deadly force is forbidden.

#32 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-12 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Cant have a reasonable discussion if your scenario is a movie plot line divorced from reality.

#33 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-12 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cant have a reasonable discussion if your scenario is a movie plot line divorced from reality. #33 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-12 12:16 PM |

I'm trying to find a baseline of agreement and proceed from there to find the distinctions that are relevant to the discussion. It saves me the trouble of engaging in futile discussions.

For example, when confronted with a gun-nut who hates the concept of restrictions on gun ownership, I may ask if private individuals should be permitted to own tanks or nuclear weaponry. If they say yes, I understand that there is no point in discussing the matter further. If they say no, then I ask for more information so I can try to understand their point better and when they think gun control should be permitted.

That is exactly what I did in your situation, asking how far one must be removed from conducting a mass murder or act of war against the U.S. before you would hold that the use of deadly force is unpermitted. You didn't answer my question, so I guess you just want to throw stones, but don't want to deal with the reality that confronts any American President when deciding how to protect our nation.

As far as my hypo being removed from reality, I guess it depends on what you consider reality. Most people agree that OBL masterminded an attack that killed thousands of our people. Are you saying that, knowing what we know today and pretending for a moment that OBL was an American citizen, due process would have prevented us from taking him out prior to him carrying out his plan? How about his lieutenants who assist him in carrying out his planned terrorist attacks, including American citizens who allegedly recruit for his group? Are we allowed to take them out, or must we let them recruit in peace, because we can't muster the necessary force to effectuate an arrest?

#34 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-12 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you saying that, knowing what we know today and pretending for a moment that OBL was an American citizen, due process would have prevented us from taking him out prior to him carrying out his plan?
#34 | Posted by censored

If by "taking him out" you mean killed, yes, due process would prevent that.

About the only thing we could have "taken out" without worrying about due process is one of the hijacked aircraft, because by that point there are not any other options and the threat is clear.

Citizenship shouldn't be a part of this conversation, and that it is is a sign of how far we've slipped. The word "citizen" does not appear within the Bill of Rights.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-12 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm trying to find a baseline of agreement and proceed from there to find the distinctions that are relevant to the discussion.

#34 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2014-02-12 01:18 PM | FLAG:

It's always been straight forward I would have thought, "Imminent threat". Your movie bad guy with the nuke button, imminent threat, shoot him... but is that the case here?

The admin has enough intel to mark him for death. That means, in my view, they've got enough evidence for due process. They should be in a court right now. Nothing good comes from ignoring due process, particularly for an execution.

I'm not trying to pretend everybody can be captured. If he's an imminent threat, such as caught planting an IED or engaging in or in transit to combat with US or friendly forces, then shoot him. Otherwise waiting for a court outcome is what the government should do, instead of discussing maybe trying court out instead of just executive execution.

oh, and private individuals can own tanks. It's legal. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate. Most gun nuts will walk away if you call a magazine a clip. Lumping them together when there are quite clear distinctions between the two is not going to help you get a rational conversational baseline on the subject of arms regulation.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-12 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I miss the TERRARR threat alerts with their pretty colors.

What ever happened to them?

Oh yeah, they weren't needed after 2004.

#37 | Posted by drewl at 2014-02-12 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort