Darth Cheney & CIA Deceived Congress

[WACF]

Not only that, for the people who think the concept is so horrible; What is a Predator drone if not a roving death squad?

Let's see:
Roams around in foreign countries undetected.
Able to shoot lethal amounts of firepower at an established target.
Can accomplish this day or night.
Is controlled remotely.
Does not need to notify Congress.

Yup, sounds exactly like a roving death squad to me.

Does not matter who is in power...this is exactly right.

[Nickdfresh]

What exactly is strawman about it? It is the reality of the situation. Because I bring this up, you think I'm trying to make an excuse for Darth. I'm just saying the "outrage" aspect is a bit overstated. Were there not attacks via Predator recently that Obama claimed he had no knowledge were taking place? That there was a Predator base most were not aware of ?

It's "strawman" because no one was really objecting to the fact that the CIA was attempting to train special operation hit squads. I think most assume that they have some paramilitary capability anyways.

The objection is that Cheney tried to prevent Congressional oversight...

[Nickdfresh]

Well, when the supermajority shoe fits...

To answer your last point, Congress is read on to "black ops" and the people have a right to oversee and regulate them. Especially when they fuck things up.

It's not up to the pResident and the out-of-control VP hiding in an undisclosed location to decide what gets oversight and what might be too much to handle.

Otherwise they could decree hit squads murder Americans in the continental US, and then say the program is too secret, since we dumped the bodies at the top secret Nellis Range (Area 51). You can't oversee it, the victims families cannot sue, and only the president and a few paramilitary officers and Langley will know about it...

It's a slippery fucking slope that only goes down...

[Blackflag]

It's "strawman" because ...

Fail.

Otherwise they could decree hit squads . . .

Oversight is irrelevant. Why? Because assassination is illegal under federal law, oversight or not. So your whole argument is based in bullshit.

[Dolemite!]

Apart from what Cheney might have kept secret, how much would congress be aware of other things that go on in the country? Decieved them indeed, what do you expect? I could almost choke on the laughter.

[Nickdfresh]

Fail.

Oh, okay douchetube. Feel free to actually explain why you're a fail...

Oversight is irrelevant. Why? Because assassination is illegal under federal law, oversight or not. So your whole argument is based in bullshit.

"Assassination" in itself isn't illegal. Only the killing of heads of states or "political" ones are, not terrorists, retard. Read something for once...

[Blackflag]

"Assassination" in itself isn't illegal.

Well, yeah...it actually is. Not only is it clearly against various parts of the Constitution, and a violation of various legally binding treaties, there's actually an explicit federal law that forbids it. (Who would've thunk that was neccessary...and yet, here you are.)

Please, continue. Tell us more about why there should be congressional oversight over U.S. assassination activities.

[Nickdfresh]

Well, yeah...it actually is. Not only is it clearly against various parts of the Constitution, and a violation of various legally binding treaties, there's actually an explicit federal law that forbids it.

Specifically where? I haven't read my copy of the constitution in a while, but I don't recall anything regarding assassinations of people...

I would also argue that the US used "assassination" tactics during the Revolution and after, as the British considered the Continental Army to be cheap shots for specifically targeting their officers during battle. And of course there were spy-vs.-spy killings and reprisals...

(Who would've thunk that was neccessary...and yet, here you are.)

Please, continue. Tell us more about why there should be congressional oversight over U.S. assassination activities.

Sure, right after you tell us why we should let terrorists freely plan murderous attacks against US civilians in lawless "no-go" areas. Then explain the legal precedent for this as I think as early as the 1800s, the US was sending Marines and mercenaries to attack Barbary Pirates after they had attacked, murdered, and kidnapped US citizens...

And by "assassinations," do you mean military ambushes by special operations forces? Is that considered "assassination?" What about targeting military leaders?

It's all semantic horseshit. The only real prohibition is against assassination heads of states in response to the Castro fiascoes of the early 1960s (which Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush W. have all tried to get around by claiming they were military targets).

I do think the United States should combat terrorism with a law and order mentality and try to arrest and try suspects in US federal courts. But if they cannot be reached by law enforcement, then the US has every right to attack murderers under international and US laws in order to protect its own, and other nations', citizens...

[Blackflag]

I haven't read my copy of the constitution in a while

Really? That's surprising. Ask Guitar Shark - I think he's a lawyer. At a bare minimum, it's against the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Due Process Clause. Also, the Constitution is an affirmative document. That you can't read anything about "assassination" in it means there is no federal power to do it - not that they're free to do it.

I would also argue that the US used "assassination" tactics during the Revolution and after, as the British considered the Continental Army to be cheap shots for specifically targeting their officers during battle. And of course there were spy-vs.-spy killings and reprisals...

You would argue that. Then I would pat you on the head and remind you that everything I pointed to - the Constitution, the international treaties, and the federal law - all came after the Revolutionary War.

Sure, right after you tell us why we should let terrorists freely plan murderous attacks against US civilians in lawless "no-go" areas.

So now you understand what a strawman argument is... See, you're learning already!

[Nickdfresh]

Really? That's surprising. Ask Guitar Shark - I think he's a lawyer. At a bare minimum, it's against the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Due Process Clause. Also, the Constitution is an affirmative document. That you can't read anything about "assassination" in it means there is no federal power to do it - not that they're free to do it.

Maybe you should ask Guitar Shark? I don't recall the Constitution applying to foreign terrorists operating illegally in foreign countries...

And spare me. then there should be no US Air Force according to your extremest, libertarian rantings, since the Constitution only explicitly mentions an Army and Navy...

But actually, I don't recall many (not referred too as ill-informed lunatics) ever making the argument that if something isn't explicitly covered or mentioned by the US Constitution, that would make it against the law...

You would argue that. Then I would pat you on the head and remind you that everything I pointed to - the Constitution, the international treaties, and the federal law - all came after the Revolutionary War.

Not "everything." Because I'd punch you in the nuts and remind you that the Constitution was not written out of a vacuum and codifies a good deal of the spirit of British common law as well as the spirit of the Magna Carta. I would also remind you that the Constitution is meant as an architecture of a US Federal system, not as the end all, be all of law, as US states have their own constitutions, much of which is also English common law derived.....

So now you understand what a strawman argument is... See, you're learning already!

I'll try explaining it to you in monosyllabic words you can understand sometime...

[Blackflag]

Maybe you should ask Guitar Shark? I don't recall the Constitution applying to foreign terrorists operating illegally in foreign countries...

The Constitution applies to the Federal government. (You're looking quite pathetic right now.)

And spare me. then there should be no US Air Force according to your extremest, libertarian rantings, since the Constitution only explicitly mentions an Army and Navy...

Another strawman argument? Because I point out that there's no authority for assassination in the Constitution, I must also be against the Air Force?

But actually, I don't recall many (not referred too as ill-informed lunatics) ever making the argument that if something isn't explicitly covered or mentioned by the US Constitution, that would make it against the law...

Welcome to my grade-school government class then. The Constitution is a list of powers allocated to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. And the Reserved Powers clause puts a cap on it, and limits to powers specifically written.

Not "everything." Because I'd punch you in the nuts and remind you that the Constitution was not written out of a vacuum and codifies a good deal of the spirit of British common law as well as the spirit of the Magna Carta.

The Constitution didn't codify any common law whatsoever. Unless you want to prove me wrong.

And your point has nothing to do with the Revolutionary War being far before the federal law that bans government assassination.

I'll try explaining it to you in monosyllabic words you can understand sometime...

Dude, why not admit you know fuck-all about this subject and bow out gracefully?

[Nickdfresh]

The Constitution applies to the Federal government.

Thanks supergenius. Glad you had that in 11th grade social studies at least...

(You're looking quite pathetic right now.)

Oh my! What self affirmations!! You're good enough, smart enough, and dog-gone, you're special!!!

Another strawman argument? Because I point out that there's no authority for assassination in the Constitution, I must also be against the Air Force?

Um, how would that be "strawman?" There's no authority in the Constitution for the Air Force either, yet they exist...

Welcome to my grade-school government class then. The Constitution is a list of powers allocated to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. And the Reserved Powers clause puts a cap on it, and limits to powers specifically written.

Yet, you've failed to list one that could possibly outlaw US counterterrorist operations (and the precedent of them going back since 1775, and possibly before if you consider the colonial gov't pre-existing the US)...

The Constitution didn't codify any common law whatsoever. Unless you want to prove me wrong.

Later, I don't feel like researching now...

And your point has nothing to do with the Revolutionary War being far before the federal law that bans government assassination.

Okay. Then what about about the Barbary Pirates? What about the US (Federal) Army's attempted, failed operation (authorized by Abraham Lincoln) to capture or kill the Confederate President Jefferson Davis in a raid?

Was that "illegal" under the Constitution since Davis was an 'enemy' of it?

Dude, why not admit you know fuck-all about this subject and bow out gracefully?

Why would I when you know even less than fuckall, than still maintain your status of internet pretender?

You've yet to provide any solid example or citation of "assassination being illegal under the US Constitution." I'm paraphrasing. but those are your points are they not?

I don't have to prove anything. You're the one making the claims, Mrs. Pibb...

[Guitar Shark]

Maybe you should ask Guitar Shark?

Thank you for asking. Everything you need to know about the Constitution is contained in this tidy little video.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_TXJRZ4CFc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_TXJRZ4CFc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>