For years, the United States has danced around the fact that it has repeatedly enter the sovereign territory of other countries with drone attacks and in some cases small unit attacks without the permission of countries like Pakistan. Such acts violate international law and would be viewed by the United States as an act of war if committed on U.S. territory. This week,Defense Secretary Leon Panetta finally responded directly to those objections and said that the attacks would continue unabated. Panetta essentially stated that we can invade other nations because we can and that countries will have to come to accept that — using the same concept as “floggings will continue on ship until morale improves.”
Panetta insisted this is really not them (other countries) but us. Speaking in India, he proclaimed “This is about our sovereignty as well.” As for Pakistan, which has repeatedly objected to attacks on its territory, Panetta said “It’s a complicated relationship, often times frustrating, often times difficult. They have provided some cooperation. There are other times when frankly that cooperation is not there.” Strangely, we would not view the relationship as complicated if Mexico sent drones into Texas to take out suspects or landed Mexican special forces in Arizona to kill enemies. We would treat it as a matter of war.
Panetta has finally made “American exceptionalism” official policy. We do these things simply because we can; because we are the United States. From torture to military tribunals to hit lists, the United States is above the legal standards that we impose on others. The greatest danger is that our hypocrisy abroad is turning into hypocrisy at home where we continue to claim to be the “land of the free” while stripping citizens of basic rights and expanding unchecked presidential and police powers.
Obama has expanded drone attacks to an unprecedented level while expanding his claimed authority to kill citizens without a charge or trial. Now the most common image of the United States abroad is not our Constitution but our drones. For many people around the world, Panetta’s speech will be viewed as adding unrestained arrogance to unrestrained power.
Source: ABC
CLH,
Mespo is a squirmy little bastard; isn’t he?
Loved the clarity of reasoning in your posts. Keep up the good work; and the good fight.
Mesposer: “Well, Bob you missed 8 USC Sec. 1481 which specifically addresses the issue and does provide for stripping citizenship upon conviction for treason. So it seems there must be some due process. Thanks for letting me do the research for you.”
There you go again Mark; intentionally misrepresenting my argument.
Does 8 USC 1481 provide that
Mepsoser: “Traitors give up citizenship by their act of treason.”
or
Mesposer: “Traitors, as you know give up citizenship, by their actions. I feel these people regardless of their place of birth, hell-bent on our destruction by their own manifest words and deeds, are entitled to no due process.”
No it doesn’t. It specifically states “if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
See that Mark? Ya can’t kill people you ‘feel’ aren’t entitled to due process because your feelings are no substitute for the law.
Yet another example of you demonstrating that you have no respect for the rule of law and that you believe first and foremost in assuaging your own anxieties and insecurities through tyrannical control.
I absolutely don’t get it. Here is a blog whose primary purpose (at least the most interesting bits) is to show (and ridicule) justice failing in our country. And I suddenly find several of the leading (and very smart) commenters are throwing around, or standing by, arguments about “traitors” and “I’ll put you down for wanting to destroy our country”. Sort of like an acceptance of a worldwide Stand Your Ground law.
I have got to start paying closer attention.
Mespo,
Skip the last, got you mixed up with someone else.
But Pentagon spin doctor, or a repeater of their spin is what you are by what you say. I want aay argue, because you don’t argue. You vituperate, denigrate, mistate….you name it.
Mespo said:
““His father who put him in harm’s way was targeted and Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was being targeted when he took his child on that trip.”
Does that remind you of anything you’ve heard in the last year or so, Mespo?
Like the dialogue between two crew members in the helicopter who shot and injured the daughters of the Iraqi man who tried to rescue a man wounded by this helicopter—after they killed all the other civilians.
This whole mission and the decision to take them out was based on completely false observations made in broad daylight, from a helicopter hovering overhead.
How you can mistake a 35mm camera for a AK-47 is beyond belief. And the smartass who said that did it instantly, not even saying “He has something in his hand. See it. What do you make of it?” No he was the asshole back behind his game console at home beating his buddies at being quickest and best. Where the EFF is respect for life.
A couple of weeks digging graves and gathering mutilated bodies might change the attitude, but don’t really think so.
After catching sight of the daughters after firing at them, the comment was: “Serves him right for taking his kids with him.” He was a EFFing passerby taking them to see their grandma perhaps. But for those in the helicopter, the whole coúntry was populated by probable secret combatants.
And that is how we see any area in the world which wants to have a govennment change, avoid American intervention, American subversion of their economy, government, education system, culture, you name it. America fights it. With whatever is most economical at times, and most often with the most profit making method for our MIC.
But you got partriot Act up your rear, and can’t tolerate that anybody might in your mind say something thát might be construed as to meaning that some patriots were dishonored by their own government. One of whom was your father. I believe you have written about it here on this blawg. You don’t need to defend him by playing the Pentagon spin doctor. Now do you?
Don’t get things mixed up. It sure screws up the head. I know, I can so testify from own experience.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/predator-drone-foia
http://www.aclu.org/human-rights-national-security/un-expert-calls-us-halt-cia-targeted-killings
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/08/media_drones_and_rank_propaganda/singleton/ FRIDAY, JUN 8, 2012 10:34 AM EDT
Media, drones and rank propaganda by Glenn Greenwald
The point was that fact was not relevant to the discussion about whether taking out the radical cleric was appropriate. -mespo727272
Ah, that might have been your point, but I was drawing attention to the fact that a 16-year-old American was killed by one of our drone strikes. You seem to think that you draw the lines here — that anyone who veers a bit outside the confines of your neatly, albeit falsely, constructed “reality” is making irrelevant points. If you don’t see the relevance of my posts, then feel free to ignore them. I really don’t care.
mespo727272
1, June 8, 2012 at 11:52 am
anonymously:
Ok, I ‘ll put you down for the “Let the village be overrun by her enemies because I lover it” school.
==========
Sure, be my guest — it won’t make it true.
anonymously:
Maybe I’ll argue like you and never concede any factual error. The point was that fact was not relevant to the discussion about whether taking out the radical cleric was appropriate.
“Gee Mark, doesn’t look like there’s anything in the Constitution or the U.S. Code that says your ‘feelings’ about alleged traitors shall substitute for the requirement of due process. In fact the Constitution is quite clear on the requirement of a conviction of treason, through due process of law analytically, before any punishment is meted out.”
***************************
Well, Bob you missed 8 USC Sec. 1481 which specifically addresses the issue and does provide for stripping citizenship upon conviction for treason. So it seems there must be some due process. Thanks for letting me do the research for you.
Still, I have no compunction about taking out people, even the native born, who have as their express and very public purpose the killing of innocent Americans and who placed themselves beyond the reach of US law enforcement even as they direct the operations of our enemy. He’s an enemy as sure as if he aimed a gun at one of our service people across sand dune. In fact, he called for the death of them along with women and children.
You want to shed tears for him go ahead. You’ll get none from me or the American people judging by the polls:
http://today.yougov.com/news/2011/10/07/killing-al-awlaki-raises-obamas-approval-terrorism/
“Why are you so afraid of these people that you would capitulate to their every tactical goal. You’d do well to recognize the wisdom of Machiavelli that if you can’t be loved you’d best be feared, and that you must deal a decisive blow to your enemy lest he be strong enough to retaliate. Pretty? No. Truth? Yes.” -mespo727272
“Afraid of these people?” Surely you jest. A case of projection, perhaps.
“You don’t see an enemy when there is one.” -mespo727272
You have no idea what I see. Let’s just put it this way. We have plenty to worry about right here in the US of A, if you want to get into treasonous activities. Fact.
But here’s what I seem to know about you. You’re a guy who forges ahead without having and/or knowing the facts. A case in point? About the killing al-Awlaki’s son you wrote:
“His father who put him in harm’s way was targeted and Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was being targeted when he took his child on that trip. Who is then the greater “devil”? The nation who protected itself from a traitor who had the express and avowed purpose of destroying it and whose son got caught in the crossfire, or the father who put him there as a shield and probably insured his demise. These radical folks have no compunction about sacrificing their children. And you, it seems, have no compunction about falling for their propaganda ploys.”
So again, you’re a guy who, with anger and arrogance, forges ahead, without first getting the full picture. You’re prone to knee-jerk reactions rather than wise, careful decisions which, in my book, makes you dangerous, foolish or, both.
“You criticize religion in Europe and the First Amendment will not be bandied about to protect you. You’re accused of theft in Cairo. The Fourth Amendment will not be honored by the Egyptian police. The document pertains to the geography it covers.”
You mean like the President of the US? And congress? And citizens of the US? And soldiers of the US? Assuming you meant geography and people, of course.
As to the rest of your arguments? Dear lord, how does one argue with non sequiturs? We can’t make moral arguments. You have no morals. We can’t make logical arguments- you misconstrue and twist till you’ve pidgeonholed every comment into your own preconceptions. We can’t make legal arguments- apparently your knowledge of constitutional law and historical precedent is an embarrassment even by my standards (and I don’t even start law school till next year). We can’t make effectiveness arguments, using your own precious pragmatism, because, um, pragmatism is essentially based on logic, see argument two.
J. Turley: (Paraphrased) “Attacking people with drones in an allied country and killing their civilians is bad.”
Mespo: Purple sailplanes eat red and purple lasers.
Feel it would be cool if JT would post the following prominently in the heading:
Notice to all persons.
The statements you make will be recorded and can and will be used against you ………..!
Ad hominem or a concise summary of someone’s pattern of thinking?
Bob, Esq. 1, June 5, 2012 at 9:26 am
Gene,
When I make a comment like “people like Mespo would have you believe that the state has the power to make ANY law simply because of an expressed good intention” it’s only because I’ve witnessed it first hand in my arguments with him.
The man has absolutely no regard for the doctrine of specifically enumerated powers and bases his arguments for the exercise of power not granted by the constitution solely on his intentions of the end justifying the means. He’ll have you believe that the survival of the nation is perpetually in question and will quote you Lincoln in the context of the Civil War to justify dismantling the constitution to achieve his aims.
Look at his arguments regarding the executive’s overreaching of power in the name of a war on “terror.” Look at the way he juices his rhetoric with fear and the remembrance of fear, i.e. invoking 9/11, as justification for decimating civil liberties. About the only thing missing from his arguments is the “Smoking Gun/In The Form of a Mushroom Cloud” metaphor used by the Bush Administration to defraud the country into war.
…
In his unfettered support of policies that attack our civil liberties, Mark has consistently demonstrated that he does not believe in freedom or the rule of law. He believes first and foremost in assuaging his own anxieties and insecurities; he believes in total control.
Mark,
Assumed you meant the USA government’s duty to observe the constitution with regard to me. Have no reason to believe that any foreign nation considers our constitution or laws in their handling of their justice systems. And the USA does often exert its pressures on behalf of American citizens in many lands including Egypt, ex. NGO’s recently.
Now all of a sudden, the executive branch has taken upon itself
the rights of the judicial one. How do you like that? And what comes next do you believe?
Mesposer: “Traitors give up citizenship by their act of treason.”
Mesposer: “Traitors, as you know give up citizenship, by their actions. I feel these people regardless of their place of birth, hell-bent on our destruction by their own manifest words and deeds, are entitled to no due process.”
There you go again Mark, substituting your ‘feelings’ for the rule of law.
Article III Sec. 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
18 U.S.C. § 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Gee Mark, doesn’t look like there’s anything in the Constitution or the U.S. Code that says your ‘feelings’ about alleged traitors shall substitute for the requirement of due process. In fact the Constitution is quite clear on the requirement of a conviction of treason, through due process of law analytically, before any punishment is meted out.
How do you ‘feel’ about that Mark?
idealist:
“And please advise what constitutional protections am I not accorded by my NOT residing in the USA itself?”
************************
You criticize religion in Europe and the First Amendment will not be bandied about to protect you. You’re accused of theft in Cairo. The Fourth Amendment will not be honored by the Egyptian police. The document pertains to the geography it covers.
anonymously:
Ok, I ‘ll put you down for the “Let the village be overrun by her enemies because I lover it” school.