Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Umbran]

They weren't Americans, and there is no war on terror, because there is no war.

There is the Authorized Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. In that legislation, in essence the Congress authorized the President to go after Al Qaeda, to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. You are correct that it is not technically a war, but it isn't the President acting on his own.

If Obama had actually followed procedure, he'd have said he did so in an effort to reduce the condemnation he received for murdering an American citizen with a drone.

The Administration thinks they did use the process that Congress allowed:

"We believe that the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization," reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended strictly for Awlaki's case.

Among those circumstances: "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."

Basically, Congress had authorized use of military force on Al Qaeda, so they used military force on a member of Al Qaeda. The AUMF makes no distinctions of national allegiance, and doesn't require a court clear every offensive action.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

It happens, but not often.

1,000 so far this year isn't often enough?

At least not when you compare the few excessive instances that happen yearly to the number of run-ins and potential instances between police and citizens every year.

Irrelevant. We are comparing number of people, most of who are U.S. citizens, killed by cops to the number of U.S. citizens killed by the federal government. Do try to stay focused on the discussion.

Not directly. If one of them comes to American and tries to kill people, he's fair game like any other American who is trying to kill someone.

So as long as he is not on American soil, he can plot to kill U.S. citizens and military personnel abroad and in the U.S. (as long as he himself isn't in the U.S.), and he isn't directly threatening U.S. citizens and military personnel? In order to avoid you complaining about people putting words in your mouth, I think you should explain that further.

 

[Umbran]

For it to smuggling, it would have to be against ISIS law or against the law of the country it goes to if taken directly to that country by ISIS. Not recognizing someone as a state doesn't make it against the law to receive goods from them.

When I do a quick search on ISIS or ISIL oil sales, the resulting reports refer to "smuggling" into Turkey, Iran, and other nations. For example, one discussion on NPR included this:

"Solomon: ...
So the oil makes it out of ISIS's territory, particularly to the rebel regions in northwestern Syria, and then they take the fuel - the refined fuel - and they find every way you can think of to get in over the border to Turkey. They've even made pipelines, and they kind of use these hand pumps to pump it in a tube under the border. Some people carry it on boats over a river that runs along parts of the border or mules. But one thing about this is that it's really decreased not, again, because of the effectiveness of the campaign to fight ISIS but actually because oil prices are so low."

MCEVERS: Why hasn't the U.S. and its allies been able to stop this from happening, to stop this sale of ISIS oil?

SOLOMON: I think two reasons. One is simply because it's so embedded now in the community that it's controlling. And that's a big problem because the coalition, especially the United States, have said they don't want to make past mistakes of turning the population against them. And so they're reluctant to bomb what are essentially civilian targets.

The other problem is how much do you pressure your allies like Turkey and Iraq to stop things like smuggling? Can you imagine how much Turkey and Iraq have one their hands trying to fight this organization? There's only so much you can demand. They do put pressure on them, and the Turks really do try. But you have an entire population of people who see this as a great way of making money in desperate conditions. So it's a really difficult situation.

MCEVERS: Erika Solomon is the Middle East correspondent for the Financial Times. Erika, thank you so much."

You think they're going to hand pump it across the border in tubes if it is legal? If it is legal, you just put it on a truck and drive it across at a normal border crossing!

 

[Sadras]

People here declared that Obama droning American citizens is both moral and justified due to laws and modern societal values.

We don't have to even go as far as drones to see what a smashing job the Red, White and Blue is doing regarding truth justice and the American way...we can just view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Subsequent_mainstream_media_coverage
I guess its ok because they were justified due to laws and modern societal values and bonus the victims weren't Americans.

It is a very messy business mixing morals into this equation.

Would be a great thesis topic "Are the 2007 Baghdad airstrikes justification for suicide bombers now?"

 

[Maxperson]

There is the Authorized Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. In that legislation, in essence the Congress authorized the President to go after Al Qaeda, to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. You are correct that it is not technically a war, but it isn't the President acting on his own.

It's unclear whether this legislation allows or was intended to allow the murder of Americans by drone.

The Administration thinks they did use the process that Congress allowed:

"We believe that the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization," reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended strictly for Awlaki's case.

Among those circumstances: "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."

Right. A note by an attorney saying, "I think it's okay." is all that was used. He got no clarification from a court on whether it was okay or not. Instead, he went on his own.

Basically, Congress had authorized use of military force on Al Qaeda, so they used military force on a member of Al Qaeda. The AUMF makes no distinctions of national allegiance, and doesn't require a court clear every offensive action.

We don't know if it was intended to allow the use of lethal force to murder Americans. It was used that way, but as you noted, it was supposed to be used against Al Qaeda, not U.S. citizens. Where one is both, it may not allow the use of that force. Americans enjoy other protections from other laws. When laws are in conflict, you don't get to just decide which one to use. It's for the courts to decide.

 

[Maxperson]

1,000 so far this year isn't often enough?

First, your source if bupkis. Second, there have't been 1000 deaths by police, where those being killed were not a threat to the lives of the officers or legitimately perceived as a threat. The police are not obligated to end up dead from not reacting to a perceived threat with lethal force. If you don't want to end up dead, comply with the police orders and sue later if the arrest was not justified.

Irrelevant. We are comparing number of people, most of who are U.S. citizens, killed by cops to the number of U.S. citizens killed by the federal government. Do try to stay focused on the discussion.

You're the only one here discussing that. The rest of us are talking about murder by the government, not death by the government.

 

[Maxperson]

You think they're going to hand pump it across the border in tubes if it is legal? If it is legal, you just put it on a truck and drive it across at a normal border crossing!

Yes. When you are being bombed by the enemy, you do what you can do avoid that happening. As soon as the U.S. and others go away, you will see permanent pipes go up.

 

[Maxperson]

We don't have to even go as far as drones to see what a smashing job the Red, White and Blue is doing regarding truth justice and the American way...we can just view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Subsequent_mainstream_media_coverage
I guess its ok because they were justified due to laws and modern societal values and bonus the victims weren't Americans.

It is a very messy business mixing morals into this equation.

Would be a great thesis topic "Are the 2007 Baghdad airstrikes justification for suicide bombers now?"

It's not about that. Wars are bad and accidents happen. They suck, but there's no way to avoid them. Collateral damage is very different than intentionally targeting civilians or Americans.

 

[Sadras]

It's not about that. Wars are bad and accidents happen. They suck, but there's no way to avoid them. Collateral damage is very different than intentionally targeting civilians or Americans.

This wasn't necessarily 'collateral damage' - it was a 'lets kill them all' attitude - which included the targeting of civilians. Also the 'no way to avoid them' in a war sure, but there is certainly a way to avoid making less of them factor which wasn't high on the priority, IMO.

 

[Cor Azer]

Right. A note by an attorney saying, "I think it's okay." is all that was used. He got no clarification from a court on whether it was okay or not. Instead, he went on his own.

My understanding is that courts never pre-emptively rule on legality of stuff. At best, all you can ever do is ask a lawyer, "Is this legal?", and if the lawyer says, "I think so due to...", you cross your fingers and wait to see if anyone with standing in the case challenges your lawyer's opinion in court. Only then will a court decide whose interpretation is valid.

Thus, no court would ever rule on Obama's actions until he actually took them and someone with standing steps up and says, "Not cool!"

And here again, crappy law rears its head, making it hard for anyone to have standing.