# Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 30, 2011)

Sallow said:


> I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.



The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. The old "make love not war" and stick a flower in a rifle barrel was just political B.S. The left wants to kill people and break things just like everyone else as long as they have a radical left wing administration but the freaking cowards don't want to get their feet wet.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Sallow said:


> I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.




You would be for the killing of an American citizen in that circumstance no matter which party held the White House?




*looking for  notebook - I think I might need a record of this one*


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

If they've become a foreign militant and we're fighting a war on terror and the foreign militants said person joined was against us in the war on terror, than obviously yes.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



Yep.

Killing American Citizens who commit heinous crimes or become treasonous and threaten terrorist attacks against this country is A-OKay..in my book.


----------



## MiddleClass (Sep 30, 2011)

Like Gabby Giffords?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 30, 2011)

He should have been stripped of his citizenship first.  Then there's no question.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 30, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



Well the difference being..

The left is a little like the guy that gets punched in the mouth by another guy..and beats the crap out of him for the sucker punch.

The right is a little like the guy that threw the sucker punch for no reason.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

Sallow said:


> I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.



I concur with this.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Sallow said:


> I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.





Did the killing of Awlaki qualify?  A warrant is all you need?  I  would think you would at least want them to have been indicted.  Some semblance of due process.  Some official record of why the government decided that this American deserved to die without trial, if only  to protect other Americans whom they might target who are not so widely disliked.

No?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 30, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> He should have been stripped of his citizenship first.  Then there's no question.



I had no trouble with Timothy McVeigh not losing his rights.

If this idiot turned himself in..he should get a trial.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



Are you really really sad this guy was offed?

Sorry. But when you fuck with the best..you die like the rest.


----------



## Toro (Sep 30, 2011)

Yes.  I'm all for it.

Here is who I want assassinated.

Snooki
The Dallas Cowboys
People who talk on their cell phones while driving in the middle lane 10 mph below the speed limit
Many others
So let's make this legal!  Hop to it, government!


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

Why is this guy something special? because he happened to come out of a vagina on American soil?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



He was on foreign soil engaged in a WAR against us, surely you see the difference between that and just another US criminal.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



Yes


----------



## pete (Sep 30, 2011)

If they deserve it HELL YEA!


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Illegal aliens have been said to be covered by the U.S. Constitution - entitled to due process, etc.  I have heartily disagreed.  Liberals want to included everyone apparently ... so far not necessarily hypocrisy.  Could be ideological differences.

Until today.  Now the U.S. Constitution covers noncitizens but does not cover citizens. THAT is hypocrisy.


Fifth Amendment:

No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ....


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm not aware of any such 'policy'.

The question itself is a false premise fallacy.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

He had plenty of time to turn himself in to recieve a trial.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...







The constitution only applies to Americans you like?


----------



## Photonic (Sep 30, 2011)

An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.

If you are in a war and you join the other side, your side has the right to kill you.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 30, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...




Killing this guy or OBL was completely justified.  It's not a left/right issue.  Killing the next head of the snake is also justified unless he recant al Queada's war on American citizens.

Your hypocracy is not stunning, merely typical of the rabid right......


----------



## Sallow (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Illegal aliens have been said to be covered by the U.S. Constitution - entitled to due process, etc.  I have heartily disagreed.  Liberals want to included everyone apparently ... so far not necessarily hypocrisy.  Could be ideological differences.
> 
> Until today.  Now the U.S. Constitution covers noncitizens but does not cover citizens. THAT is hypocrisy.
> 
> ...



A warrant for his arrest was issued.

He failed to comply.

What's the problem here?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Photonic said:


> An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.



Exactly. Not only that, but he was blatantly treasonous - - - last I looked, the penalty for that was?

And last I looked, but the penalty for being an enemy combatant, in a WAR, was?

This is laughable, and the thread title itself is disengenuous.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Nope.

And again..not seeing what the problem is?

The Bush administration killed scores of newly minted Al Qaeda agents in Iraq, who never, by the way, did any crimes, without any warrants. And they killed scores of innocent civilians.

You guys weren't boo-hooing any of that.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Photonic said:


> An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.
> 
> If you are in a war and you join the other side, your side has the right to kill you.






Nixon considered John Lennon an enemy of the state.    ETA: Sorry for not including any American names.  I don't have his watch list at hand.  But I know there were some Americans on it.



Obama's White House considers returning veterans, single-issue voters, abortion opponents, and gun rights activists potential enemies of the state. 



We are well into slippery slope territory here.  Halfway down the ravine. It's one thing to be glad that a terrorist has been taken out of commission.  It is another thing to be cavalier about the possible constitutional ramifications of this.  This is serious stuff.  We are not treating it with the sobriety it deserves.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.
> ...



Thats ridiculous.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself for taking up the plight of a Treasonous Traitor who has Declared Open War on your Country, and publicly joined the opposing force *in* an open War. 

Really   - - - - - ashamed - - - - - of yourself. 

Partisanship; though, leads to this sort of low-brow behavior and it's really just fucking sad. Either side, doesn't matter. Loser.


----------



## Texanmike (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?



Are you talking about Al-Awalaki?


----------



## bodhisattva (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?



Amelia, your poll phraseology is very fucked up.

Obviously no one in their right minds would want to assassinate American citizens in a general sense.

However, in the light of the *execution* of the *established* leaders of Terrorist Arseholes, and their followers, it should be more than being in favour ........ it should be the *duty* of our government to execute that scum whether they are American citizens or not.


----------



## Texanmike (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



All enemies, foreign and domestic.  

Mike


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?



If they belong to Al Qaida I sure as hell am.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ....


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 30, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> Like Gabby Giffords?



Boards biggest asshole. Bar NONE.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Fifth Amendment:
> 
> No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ....



What does it say about Declaration of War, idiot.


----------



## Caroljo (Sep 30, 2011)

Photonic said:


> An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.
> 
> If you are in a war and you join the other side, your side has the right to kill you.



Right...he should have lost his citizenship as soon as he joined with the terrorists anyway.  I wouldn't consider him a citizen, he lost that right.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Fifth Amendment:
> 
> No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ....



He got his due process. In Pakistan.. Yes the fucker did.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh if only all our enemies resided on foreign soil.  Unfortunately the most devious and dangerous enemy to our way of life walks among us everyday.

The attack on 9/11 devastated us in many ways.  However, rather than dividing us, we found ourselves united against a common foe with whom we were able and willing to do battle.  Consequently, what has happened to us, our economy and our country are not attributable to anything done on that fateful day.  

What happened to us, our economy and our country were the actions of American citizens who saw and took the opportunity to simply rob the people blind.  bin Laden had nothing to do with the mortgage meltdown, the excesses of Wall Street, or corporations too big to fail.  bin Laden did not orchestrate the largest transfer of public money to private individuals in history.  bin Laden was not working at ENRON when Ken Lay decided it would be fun to screw with California's energy.  Kw hours went up to $9000 in one day and stayed that way for about 4 or 5 hours.  

Terrorists aren't killing America, white collar criminals are.  Their greed knows no bounds and their indifference to the consequences of their actions is definitely on par level with the worst terrorist offender.  So while we merrily go around the world dispensing those whom we think are our worst enemies, perhaps we should stay closer to home.  



> At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.  Abraham Lincoln --January 27, 1838


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Fifth Amendment:
> ...




Nothing which contradicts the portion I quoted.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.
> ...



Lennon/Nixon.  Yes he did however since Lennon was a peace activist and not part of a violent terrorist organization, Nixon tried to have him deported.

John Lennon - FBI Files

returning veterans.  Operation Vigilant Eagle I presume? However how roundly would the rabid right critize the Obama Administration if they let another OKC happen?  As far as the other is the paragraph do you think they were looking at the radical forms of anti-abortionist(youk now the ones who justify killing doctors) or gun nuts?

There is no slippery slope on this one, just partisan BS.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't like the idea at all - I can understand the decision in this case, but it's an awful precedent to set.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

idiot.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)




----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

Apparently this alleged 'policy' doesn't sand up Amelia's vagina quite like a neg rep!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

I want this woman to answer an honest question:

He was killed in the Bombing of an al-quada hideout in the Yemen Mountains. Do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

manifold said:


> Apparently this alleged 'policy' doesn't sand up Amelia's vagina quite like a neg rep!




You are so full of yourself.  



I care about the constitution.  You neg rep me for it.  You don't like my answer.   So now you come here to talk about rep?







8537 said:


> I don't like the idea at all - I can understand the decision in this case, but it's an awful precedent to set.




Finally.  Someone who gets it.


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> I want this woman to answer an honest question:
> 
> He was killed in the Bombing of an al-quada hideout in the Yemen Mountains. Do you have a problem with that?



She's clearly a partisan asscrack.  No additional analysis required.


----------



## The Gadfly (Sep 30, 2011)

This is not a law enforcement matter; this is a WAR, and in war, you don't *arrest* the enemy, you *kill* the enemy. In this case the object of the exercise had not only allied himself with an armed enemy of the United States, he had become a part of the enemy's command structure. He is thus an enemy combatant, NOT an American (regardless of where he was born) and subject to being taken out whenever and wherever the situation permits. I see no problem with ordering the elimination of an enemy command target, none whatsoever.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> I want this woman to answer an honest question:
> 
> He was killed in the Bombing of an al-quada hideout in the Yemen Mountains. Do you have a problem with that?





I don't have a problem with a member of an enemy organization being killed in a military action against said organization.

I have a problem with an American citizen being specifically targeted for death without due process.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

I'll wait for an honest unspun answer.


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia Bedilia said:
			
		

>






Blow it out yer twat you partisan hack.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I want this woman to answer an honest question:
> ...



Then you don't have a problem with the way he was killed, because he was inside of an al quada hideout and we're, you know, _AT WAR WITH AL QUADA_, so........you have no story here.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 30, 2011)

He was an Al Queda dirtbag. 

From news reports this AM he was a A dirtbag  had a hand in Ft. Hood, the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber. 

He also was in direct contact with at least three of the dirtbags who flew planes on 9/11. 

There was no due process for the folks that died that day. 

He was an Al Queda dirtbag and I don't give a shit if he was born in America. Good riddance to him and I hope we get many, many more of his buddies.


----------



## Texanmike (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> I don't like the idea at all - I can understand the decision in this case, but it's an awful precedent to set.



We set the precedent in the 1860's. 

Mike


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

According to Amelia Bedelia's nonsensical standard, all Al Qaida has to do is recruit American citizens and place one at every hideout they have, and we wouldn't be able to bomb them.

How fucking retarded is that?  Seriously?


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

manifold said:


> According to Amelia Bedelia's nonsensical standard, all Al Qaida has to do is recruit American citizens and place one at every hideout they have, and we wouldn't be able to bomb them.
> 
> How fucking retarded is that?  Seriously?





Bullshit.  That's not what I am saying.  

I'm just saying your reason for going after the hideouts should not be that you are specifically targeting the American citizens inside without due process.  


When you have to twist someone's position to try to justify your tirade against the person that shows the weakness of your position.






Fifth Amendment:

No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ....


----------



## 8537 (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I want this woman to answer an honest question:
> ...



^this.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > According to Amelia Bedelia's nonsensical standard, all Al Qaida has to do is recruit American citizens and place one at every hideout they have, and we wouldn't be able to bomb them.
> ...



We're going after the hideouts regardless if he's there or not, get your head out of your ass. 

And even if he were being targeted, he's a LEADER in the enemy organization that WE'RE AT WAR WITH. 

Do you think war is funny? Think it's cute? Think it's ok to literally pack your bags and move to the middle east and become a LEADER for the ENEMY, in a WAR against your Country, and not be targeted? <-- that's insanity. You're being obtuse and irrational and you're kicking dirt on the people who defend this Country from scum who are AT WAR with us. 

Please tell me the difference - as you know it - between an Enemy Combatant, and a Criminal.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



It's kind of redundant. He's a communications leader in a war, residing with the enemy. gee, what would a rational Military do?


----------



## 8537 (Sep 30, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the idea at all - I can understand the decision in this case, but it's an awful precedent to set.
> ...



We "set" it during the war of 1812.  But that doesn't mean we need to follow or confirm it in 2011.

Everyone's ra-rah about killing US citizens...until the government decides to use such authority to kill an American citizen we like.

I'd prefer they not have such authority.  Due process has treated us well for 220 years.


----------



## Texanmike (Sep 30, 2011)

> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;




Personally I think you're wrong and you are fishing for boogey men in this case.  If you declare war on us you are resigning your citizenship as it is an act of treason. To be quite honest, answer this. Was he not outside the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government?  He was in a war, having declared war on the US.  





Amelia said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently this alleged 'policy' doesn't sand up Amelia's vagina quite like a neg rep!
> ...



 He's a tool.  I agree with him on a lot of things but he's a drama queen. Kind of embarassed that he's on my side on some issues.  Almost like the racist at a political rally. You just wish they would go home.


Mike


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



He gave them the authority by bunkering up with the enemy. Chilling right in their living room, voluntarily, and becoming a leader in their cause to destroy our country. 

This is not that difficult of a decision.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


I understand that - and I also completely understand why we did what we did in this case.  The military is for fighting foreign enemies.  We don't target US citizens with the military


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > According to Amelia Bedelia's nonsensical standard, all Al Qaida has to do is recruit American citizens and place one at every hideout they have, and we wouldn't be able to bomb them.
> ...



Actually, it's exactly what you're saying.  You're just too stupid and/or partisanly blinded to realize it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

Stay away from Al Qaeda hide outs, and you won't have anything to worry about.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> We're going after the hideouts regardless if he's there or not, get your head out of your ass.
> 
> And even if he were being targeted, he's a LEADER in the enemy organization that WE'RE AT WAR WITH.
> 
> ...





When Obama first took heat for putting this guy on his hit list, he said he was considering indicting the guy.  He didn't follow through with it.  He should have.

You don't put Americans on hit lists without due process.  Not and claim to have any constitutional leg to stand on.



We can be happy that a terrorist is taken out but we should not be so glib about this violation of a citizen's constitutional rights to due process.  That's how lines get blurred and then obliterated.  Set the precedent with someone who is universally disliked knowing that  few will complain.  And then apply it for shakier and shakier things later.  There will be nothing anyone right or left can legitimately say against it, if they don't stand up for the constitution now.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



We do if they're sitting with the opposing force.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > We're going after the hideouts regardless if he's there or not, get your head out of your ass.
> ...



No lines got blurred. You're being purposefully obtuse. This was a cut and dry case of declaring war, declaring with the enemy, and subsequently residing with the enemy. 

In a war, when you do that, no trial is necessary. Once you openly declare war on the United States, you have revoked your citizenship via declaring your own treason - - which is a VOLUNTARY bipass of a Treason Trial. 

It's a cut and dry case, there's no worries about the precedent. They got it right.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



All enemies, foreign and domestic. Just because this asshole happened to come out of a vagina on American soil doesn't give him a free pass to do what he wants.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

I can't believe people here want to give this guy a free pass just because he happened to be born here.


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> I can't believe people here want to give this guy a free pass just because he happened to be born here.



It makes him worse IMO.


----------



## Valerie (Sep 30, 2011)

Way to sympathize with terrorists who plot to kill innocents!   






> SANA, Yemen &#8212; Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda&#8217;s Yemen affiliate and was considered its most dangerous English-speaking propagandist and plotter, was killed in an American drone strike that deliberately targeted his vehicle on Friday, officials in Washington and Yemen said. They said the strike also killed a radical American colleague traveling with Mr. Awlaki who edited Al Qaeda&#8217;s online jihadist magazine.
> 
> 
> Mr. Awlaki was an important member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, regarded as the most dangerous Al Qaeda affiliate. He was considered the inspirational or operational force behind a number of major plots aimed at killing Americans in the United States in recent years, most notably the deadly assault at an American army base in Fort Hood, Texas, and attempts to bomb Times Square and a Detroit-bound jetliner.
> ...






*
Anwar al-Awlaki&#8217;s Suspected Ties to Terror Plots*

_Oct, 29, 2010

* Chicago, Attempted Cargo BombingsPowerful bombs concealed inside two cargo packages and destined for Jewish targets in Chicago were shipped from Yemen and intercepted in October 2010 in Britain and Dubai. Mr. Awlaki is suspected of helping plan the plot.



May 1, 2010

* New York City, Attempted Car BombingFaisal Shahzad tried to detonated a car bomb in Times Square. Mr. Shazad pleaded guilty in the plot and told investigators that he was inspired by Mr. Awlaki.


Dec. 25, 2009

* Detroit, Attempted Airliner BombingMr. Awlaki said that he taught and corresponded with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is charged with attempting to detonate explosives sewn into his underwear aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it landed in Detroit. The bomb did not explode.


Nov. 5, 2009

* Fort Hood, Tex., Mass ShootingMaj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who is accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting that took place on Nov. 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Tex., had been investigated by the F.B.I. before the attack for exchanging emails with Mr. Awlaki between December 2008 and June 2009.


May 8, 2007

*Fort Dix, N.J., Planned AttackSeveral of the five men convicted for planning an attack on Fort Dix, N.J., said they were inspired by Mr. Awlaki's lectures.


June 2, 2006

*Toronto, Planned AttacksThe 18 people arrested for planning attacks in Toronto had watched online videos of Mr. Awlaki during their group training.


July 7, 2005

*London, Transit BombingsFour suicide bombers who targeted the city&#8217;s mass transit system at rush hour had been followers of Mr. Awlaki&#8216;s lectures._

Anwar al-Awlaki?s Suspected Ties to Terror Plots - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > According to Amelia Bedelia's nonsensical standard, all Al Qaida has to do is recruit American citizens and place one at every hideout they have, and we wouldn't be able to bomb them.
> ...




Amelia,

What the targeting of the stronghold because the individual was the head of an international terrorist organization at war with the United States or was the targeting because he was an American Citizen?  There is a difference.



Now to your question.

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 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."​

We need two witness that have give testimony that he committed treasonous acts.  I bet we have that.


United States Code Title 18 § 2381. Treason

"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. "​

So now we've affixed the death penalty for committing treason.




That sounds good to me.  WorldWatcher approves of the bombing of a terrorist hideout with a treasonous murder contained within.



>>>>


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



We don't need the two witnesses because of this part:  "or confession on an open court."

We have all kinds of videos, and further he was at an al quada hideout. What's more to confess? He was guilty of treason, subject to death.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia,
> 
> What the targeting of the stronghold because the individual was the head of an international terrorist organization at war with the United States or was the targeting because he was an American Citizen?  There is a difference.
> 
> ...





Thank you for your reasoned post, WW.  I can't be mad at you today.  


However, I think we should have taken him to court.  Put those witnesses on the record.  With cross examination by someone representing the defendant.  Get a verdict.  

We didn't do it right.  


And hardly anyone seems to mind.  <--- this scares me.


----------



## Valerie (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia,
> ...





Did you hear about the new Japanese restaurant all the young lawyers have been going to for lunch...........?  

















It's called so-sue-me!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 30, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



You're really very stupid, whitehall.  Very, very stupid.


----------



## Douger (Sep 30, 2011)

Yep. The people that support terruh. That would be the taxpayers.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe people here want to give this guy a free pass just because he happened to be born here.
> ...



I agree, and it makes him more dangerous.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia,
> ...



except the whole part where he already confessed


----------



## 8537 (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



But that is  not what Obama said he would do in this case - he said we would specifically target him.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You'll have to excuse me, perhaps my memory is faulty.  Where did I suggest we give him a free pass to do what he wants?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



And where was his suspected whereabouts, when Obama said this? He had already fled to al quada.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?



LOL! Even though you wrote this as a leading question, you're getting slaughtered on this one.
Our policies have been clear since WWII.
Anyone giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a traitor and considered an enemy combatant.

I don't think they included such little details as "Anyone publicly declaring war against the USA and publishing materials to _Inspire_ said war...."

Ron Paul is a dick. He will never win a presidential and now, his days as a Congressman are over too. Good! F*ck him!


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?
> ...





No.  I'm not getting slaughtered.  I'm merely getting an eyeful about the number of people on the left and on the right who are fine with ignoring the Constitution when they're certain they have morality on their side.

I know what the constitution says.  Obama should have at least gone through the motions in some court - whether military or civilian - or Obama shouldn't have put him on a hit list.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Umm, the guy confessed. You better read up on treason again.


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

The rightwing loons must've drawn straws to see who was going to have to embarrass themselves by criticizing Obama for this, and Amelia drew the short straw.  In other words, she's just taking one for the team.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Your saying we shouldn't have targetted him, we can't arrest him so basically you are letting him do what he wants.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Have you watched any of Anwars videos Amelia? he wasn't shy about what he stood for.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...





Should have been easy to get a legal judgment against him then.  

Too bad our government didn't even try before they targeted him for death.


----------



## jillian (Sep 30, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



just because one prefers to make love not war (something from the 60's, btw... not so much now)... doesn't mean you don't or shouldn't punch school yard bullies in the face.


----------



## jillian (Sep 30, 2011)

i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.


----------



## Caroljo (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Then i have a suggestion....next time something like this comes up, i think you should be the one to go arrest the traitor!  Don't you GET IT??? Why put him through a trial, which would cost us alot of money we don't have, knowing he's going to get the death penalty anyway?  This is one thing i agree with obama on (and there's not much i do agree on!), he actually saved the country some money this time! Lol!


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

jillian said:


> i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.



Anwar was a nice guy and we should be ashamed he is dead.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.
> ...



No. The point is that people who publicly declare war against the United States uh, hmmm. No that can't be it.
It's that if someone plans acts of terrorism against us they are really swell deep inside and uh.... No, that's not it. 
Hmmm.

Hey! Look at my new avatar! I just made it!


----------



## Valerie (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...








> Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting  the younger al-Awlaki.
> 
> *But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.
> 
> ...




Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?


----------



## jillian (Sep 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.
> ...



she's a blithering idiot.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I like it!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



I believe sallow would but he is wrong on one point Americans no matter what they are charged with are garenteed the right to a trial, even if they are caught in the act, unless they resist arrest.


----------



## manifold (Sep 30, 2011)

jillian said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



and then s...

...oh wait, nope that's it.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...





Awlaki didn't have to be present for an indictment.  

Obama didn't even go through the motions.

Just put out a hit order on an American citizen without even a  token attempt to go through the motions and uphold the Constitution.


----------



## Caroljo (Sep 30, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Wow....i think you should join Amelia when she goes to arrests the next one! Lol! Wow stupid!!!!!


----------



## Caroljo (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



He was a TRAITOR to our country!!!! Don't you get it??? He helped kill thousands of people!  He gave up his "citizenship" when he joined Al Quada! I give up.......


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal aliens have been said to be covered by the U.S. Constitution - entitled to due process, etc.  I have heartily disagreed.  Liberals want to included everyone apparently ... so far not necessarily hypocrisy.  Could be ideological differences.
> ...


So, assassinate _before_ the trial?

I am for taking out those who are working with our enemy or have become our enemy and their doing us harm is imminent.

Was that the case with a guy who lunched with DoD folks in Arlington not too long ago?

I don't know.

But, I am looking at this with caution now, because of that.

I'm on the fence about this, now.  There's too much fishy history with this guy and the government.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...




He did not officially give it up.  


A whole helluva lot of people here consider Obama a traitor.  A whole lot consider Bush a traitor.  There are a lot of sketchy people who have offered some sort of succor to those who wish to do us harm.  That is not enough to sentence an American citizen to death, not without legal proceedings.



When Obama faced some blowback after he initially put the hit order on Alwaki he talked about possibly getting an indictment.  But the news story died down and he didn't follow through.  He knew good and damned well that he was wrong here but we didn't hold him accountable. 

And now he has shredded the fifth amendment and all these people who claim to care about the Constitution are showing that they believe they're above it.  

There is a reason for due process and you guys have just flushed it down the toilet.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 30, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You're wrong. Any American caught giving aid and comfort to the enemy, is classified an enemy combatant. Goes back to WWI & WWII. In this case, when the guy openly declared war against the USA, he gave up his Constitutional rights to the UCMJ.
He is then subject to infantry or artillery fire, or any other means employed by troops assigned to combat the enemy. If he is captured during combat, his is to be imprisoned until such time a tribunal is available. If killed in combat, he is an enemy casualty. 
Interesting. Wouldn't have pegged you as being so sympathetic toward the Civil Liberties of terrorists on foreign soil. 
Liberal by convenience?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 30, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Keep in mind Saddam Hussein was our friend too, so was Osama Bin Laden, just because Anwar may have talked to our government before doesn't really mean much, these things change all the time.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Then, Harry Reid is an enemy combatant.  He gave aid to the enemy.  He didn't know it at the time, but most reasonable persons with half a brain would have known.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


I understand.  But, neither of those bozos were American citizens, either.  And, neither of those bozos were even indicted.

I KNOW that every single American has a right to due process.  It's in the Constitution.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Sep 30, 2011)

Toro said:


> Yes.  I'm all for it.
> 
> Here is who I want assassinated.
> 
> ...



jeebus can sort them out.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Sep 30, 2011)

assassinating other humans with other nationalities is okay. but the line is drawn, when the target has a US passport.

lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...






> You're wrong. Any American caught giving aid and comfort to the enemy, is classified an enemy combatant. Goes back to WWI & WWII. In this case, when the guy openly declared war against the USA, he gave up his Constitutional rights to the UCMJ.



Then why isn't obama behind bars and facing a firing squad? Libya rebels ring a bell?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Sep 30, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



look, a birfer and oafer


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


hAve you ever heard of due process? I don't think you have


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

Libyan rebels were the same people we are still fighting in Iraq al Qaeda
ever heard of them? obama gave them aid by helping them in Libya


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

We show how much we believe in the First Amendment when we allow even repugnant people like the Klan to hold parades.

Similarly, we show how much we believe in the Fifth Amendment when we apply due process to all American citizens.  



Today we are showing how conditional are devotion to the Constitution is.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Sep 30, 2011)

During World War II a number of German American citizens returned to the 'motherland' and joined Hitler's army.  They fought against American GI's that landed at Normandy.  How many of them were returned to the US for trial?  I can answer that:  ZERO.  They were treated as enemy combatants if they got to live.

I don't get this shiite about wanting to give a person who advocated the death of Americans and the destruction of the country by violent means, a freakin trial.  He moved to Yemen and we know that he had a hand in the Ft. Hood shooting, the Christmas bomber and the Times Square Bomber.  Luckily, only Major Hasan had any luck.

If you move to another country, advocate and take actions that result in violence against Americans AND/OR this country, then son you are walking worm food.  THAT is the way it has been and THAT is the way it should be from now on.  This love affair with spending millions of dollars on show trials is a bunch of nonsense.

I am pissed off about one thing.  We probably expended a Hellfire missle on this walking cum stain.  You know how expensive that is?  He didn't deserve anything but about 125 grains of lead.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> We show how much we believe in the First Amendment when we allow even repugnant people like the Klan to hold parades.
> 
> Similarly, we show how much we believe in the Fifth Amendment when we apply due process to all American citizens.
> 
> ...



That is CRAP.  We NEVER brought back any enemy combatants in WWII and there is no reason to bring him back for trial.  You know, you CAN forfeit your right to protection under the constitution.  What this shit stain did, pretty much tells me he's free and clear.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > We show how much we believe in the First Amendment when we allow even repugnant people like the Klan to hold parades.
> ...





I never said bring him back.  I said don't specifically target him for death without due process.

Big difference between (a) killing an American in battle if he happens to be in the location of a military operation and (b)  actually targeting the specific American citizen for death without so much as an indictment.


----------



## Maple (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



No, no there isn't.  If you're actively working for the destruction of this country in a foreign land, then you ARE an enemy combatant.  Doesn't matter if the military operation is around you or targeting you.  The key here being that no one forced him to do this.  He did it on his own and he is the one taking the positive steps to harm our citizens OR this country.  Read the crap this dude put out.  His ties to active terrorists is well documented.

Tokyo Rose was an American citizen.  She claims she was forced to do what she did.  But it didn't matter, the allies wanted her DEAD.  Under your theory, Rose would have had to be indicted before any action could be taken.  Believe me, no indictment was sought.  They never have been, until recently.  And that way of thinking is just wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> During World War II a number of German American citizens returned to the 'motherland' and joined Hitler's army.  They fought against American GI's that landed at Normandy.  How many of them were returned to the US for trial?  I can answer that:  ZERO.  They were treated as enemy combatants if they got to live.
> 
> I don't get this shiite about wanting to give a person who advocated the death of Americans and the destruction of the country by violent means, a freakin trial.  He moved to Yemen and we know that he had a hand in the Ft. Hood shooting, the Christmas bomber and the Times Square Bomber.  Luckily, only Major Hasan had any luck.
> 
> ...



Did you have any of those that went to the motherland reclaiming their citizenship when captured?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 30, 2011)

I've been reading about Anwar al-Awlaki for almost an hour now, and his behavior seems to shadow a character who was linked to 3 9/11 hijackers, a Christmas 2010 wannabe bomber, a lot of training of alQaeda to take out American targets, and Hasan the Ft. Hood shooter who murdered 12 people at Ft. Hood in 2009.

He was lying, sneaky, intelligent, the great pretender, and traitor all rolled into one. He became a target after phone calls between him and Hasan took place shortly before. Someone bought into his case pleading his own innocence in 9/11, but he knew 3 of the hijackers, and it is now believed he helped them and had lied about not helping them.

We need to review our citizenship requirements of people who are hostile to the USA, and revoke their citizenship when they become enemies. This creep has been our enemy for many years, long before 9/11. He hated us, lived among us, disowned us, participated in killing thousands of Americans, trained others to do likewise, and encouraged yet others to commit mass murders in America.

He's the Charles Manson of the Muslim world.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Sep 30, 2011)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...



so what happened to the tokyo roses?


----------



## The T (Sep 30, 2011)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> During World War II a number of German American citizens returned to the 'motherland' and joined Hitler's army. They fought against American GI's that landed at Normandy. How many of them were returned to the US for trial? I can answer that: ZERO. They were treated as enemy combatants if they got to live.
> 
> I don't get this shiite about wanting to give a person who advocated the death of Americans and the destruction of the country by violent means, a freakin trial. He moved to Yemen and we know that he had a hand in the Ft. Hood shooting, the Christmas bomber and the Times Square Bomber. Luckily, only Major Hasan had any luck.
> 
> ...


 See what political correctness has done for/to real history?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

L.K.Eder said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Which one there were 8


----------



## The T (Sep 30, 2011)

Seems to me the OP's question is way too broad. Another one of her polls I will NOT answer.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Sep 30, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...



that's why i typed roses, instead of rose.

so what happened to them?


----------



## The T (Sep 30, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> I've been reading about Anwar al-Awlaki for almost an hour now, and his behavior seems to shadow a character who was linked to 3 9/11 hijackers, a Christmas 2010 wannabe bomber, a lot of training of alQaeda to take out American targets, and Hasan the Ft. Hood shooter who murdered 12 people at Ft. Hood in 2009.
> 
> He was lying, sneaky, intelligent, the great pretender, and traitor all rolled into one. He became a target after phone calls between him and Hasan took place shortly before. Someone bought into his case pleading his own innocence in 9/11, but he knew 3 of the hijackers, and it is now believed he helped them and had lied about not helping them.
> 
> ...


In my view he gave up ANY claim of being an American.


----------



## yidnar (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?


Absolutely not !!! abortion for convenience  should be outlawed !!


----------



## earlycuyler (Sep 30, 2011)

That American citizen yes, im all for it.


----------



## B. Kidd (Sep 30, 2011)

Sets a bad precedent that could come back at some future point to bite citizens in the ass. Who knows what the future holds as to what extent our government morphs towards tryanny?
Hell, even one day 'The T', or any freedom-loving outspoken citizen could be targeted as deemed by our government in the aforementioned scenario; as a precedent, afterall, has been set.


----------



## yidnar (Sep 30, 2011)

We killed a terrorist you stupid left wing faggots !!!!!! and thats a good thing!!!.............DAMN!!!


----------



## syrenn (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?




Tough shit for the terrorists.  


You want to be a terrorist bent on the murder of American citizens and destruction of America.... YES i am FOR assassination. 

.... assassination cannot come soon enough for terrorists..


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

It's a different experience for me to be standing alone like this against so many.  I stand in bemusement.


Liberals say we shouldn't have waterboarded KSM (or anyone else) but now they're fine with targeting a specific American citizen for death without so much as an indictment.


Conservatives wanted a constitutional explanation for every bill passed in the current congress, but today don't care about the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

.... on a related noted about liberal reactions ... I am very curious about what Rachel Maddow has said or will say about this.   When al-Awlaki  was first put on the hit list she took Obama to task for targeting an American citizen for assassination w/o due process.

I wonder if she'll be on board with Obama today.  Bet she will.  But will be impressed with her if she stands on what her ground was last year.


----------



## Texanmike (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> It's a different experience for me to be standing alone like this against so many.  I stand in bemusement.
> 
> 
> Liberals say we shouldn't have waterboarded KSM (or anyone else) but now they're fine with targeting a specific American citizen for death without so much as an indictment.
> ...



You are acting as if there is nothing else in the Constitution.  

Mike


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?
> ...



How many times has the left hinted that those on the right were terrorist?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 30, 2011)

Si modo said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



LOL! Um yeah okay. That's not a stretch at all. That's exactly the same as publicly declaring war on the United States.
Amazing the rationalization people will go for if it offers the opportunity to criticize "the other party" (happens on both sides). Why hell, Reb has suddenly become an ACLU card-carrying Liberal!


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 30, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



LOL! Dude you are one funny indibidibull! So where exactly was NATO declared an enemy? Or wait, wait! I get it! You're going to show me proof that Obama declared war on the USA! Okay! Can't wait! 

I love whackjobbery!


----------



## B. Kidd (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> It's a different experience for me to be standing alone like this against so many.  I stand in bemusement.
> 
> 
> Liberals say we shouldn't have waterboarded KSM (or anyone else) but now they're fine with targeting a specific American citizen for death without so much as an indictment.
> ...



What amazes me is that some say they no longer recognize the country they grew up in anymore and wonder how we got to this point.
Well, for what it's worth, this is one instance of how we get to that point.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIoKr9VDg3A]For What It&#39;s Worth - Buffalo Springfield - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

agreed


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Who the fuck do you think the libyian rebels were? just who was fighting and who were we helping?


----------



## Valerie (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> agreed






  THIS POINT is only a figment of your imagination!


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...


Put the bong down.

Reid provided cash, that's C-A-S-H, to the insurgents in Fallujah.

In 2004.

While our Marines were boots on the ground there.

While they were fighting.

For their lives.



Rationalize that.


----------



## DiAnna (Sep 30, 2011)

Wanted fugitives, including Americans, are killed all the time... trying to evade capture, trying to kill the authorities coming after them, trying to kill other people.  All.  The.  Time.  IIRC, a group of terrorists tried to attack a military base on US soil and were killed.  They were U.S. citizens, killed as they carried out attacks against us.  I didn't hear anyone bemoaning their fate because they didn't have a trial.  The poor little terrorist shouldn't have been killed because he was an American rot doesn't fly with me.

This person declared war on the non-Muslim world, including the USA and Europe, and spearheaded dozens of attacks that killed hundreds of people, along with several thwarted attempts that would have killed hundreds more.  He recruited through websites where he bragged about his murderous activities, bragged about his victims.

He was a traitor and a terrorist.  Both crimes carry the death penalty.  I'll waste no hypocritical tears on him.  Good riddance.  If there was a spit-on-his-grave icon, I'd use it here.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 30, 2011)

Had Bush done it...the liberals would have had him impeached.

That said,  I have one question.

Was he found guilty of any crime in absentia?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

DiAnna said:


> Wanted fugitives, including Americans, are killed all the time... trying to evade capture, trying to kill the authorities coming after them, trying to kill other people.  All.  The.  Time.  IIRC, a group of terrorists tried to attack a military base on US soil and were killed.  They were U.S. citizens, killed as they carried out attacks against us.  I didn't hear anyone bemoaning their fate because they didn't have a trial.  The poor little terrorist shouldn't have been killed because he was an American rot doesn't fly with me.
> 
> This person declared war on the non-Muslim world, including the USA and Europe, and spearheaded dozens of attacks that killed hundreds of people, along with several thwarted attempts that would have killed hundreds more.  He recruited through websites where he bragged about his murderous activities, bragged about his victims.
> 
> He was a traitor and a terrorist.  Both crimes carry the death penalty.  I'll waste no hypocritical tears on him.  Good riddance.  If there was a spit-on-his-grave icon, I'd use it here.



Maybe bill aryers should be shot on sight.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRexSyuQ7w&feature=feedu]Ron Paul Attacks Institutionalized Assassination of US Citizens - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The T (Sep 30, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Shit man? Who did we side with in Egypt?

Heard the latest edict from the Muslim Brotherhood regarding Israeli's in Egypt...Tourist or not? _"To Be Killed"_

*LINK*

The 'Arab Spring' came about precisely because Obama's 'World Apology Tour' in 2009. Obama has succeeded in destabilizing events in the world.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



yep exactly


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Had Bush done it...the liberals would have had him impeached.





Yes, if Bush had done it there would be riots.





Missourian said:


> That said,  I have one question.
> 
> Was he found guilty of any crime in absentia?




He being Bush?  Or Awlaki?  


I do not believe that Awlaki was found guilty of any crime in absentia.  Not by a U.S. court.


----------



## Liability (Sep 30, 2011)

Fuck al-Awlaki.

I'm glad the President authorized the sanction on that prick.

Another example of me complimenting President Obama?

Yep.

It is.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 30, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> Like Gabby Giffords?



Excuse me?


----------



## Intense (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?



An American Citizen hiding from us in Yemen? Yes, with extreme Prejudice.


----------



## jillian (Sep 30, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Had Bush done it...the liberals would have had him impeached.
> 
> That said,  I have one question.
> 
> Was he found guilty of any crime in absentia?



and yet he wasn't impeached for lying about WMD's?

i'm thinking... nah on the impeachment thing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

Liability said:


> Fuck al-Awlaki.
> 
> I'm glad the President authorized the sanction on that prick.
> 
> ...



So we throw the Constitution out the widow? Who's to say what will be determined a terrorist act next month. Do we really want to open that can of worms?


----------



## Liability (Sep 30, 2011)

jillian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Had Bush done it...the liberals would have had him impeached.
> ...



There is zero proof that the last decent President ("W") "lied" about WMDs, you dipshit.

In any case, your general incoherence is worse than usual.

Are you sniffing glue Dildollian?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

jillian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Had Bush done it...the liberals would have had him impeached.
> ...



Bush got his information from opertives in eroupe, if the lie was told it came from eroupe Bush did go dig the information up it was handed to him. Did he lie no, IT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE TO GO WITH FALSE INTELL


----------



## The Gadfly (Sep 30, 2011)

Look, no matter who the POTUS is, killing tis guy was the right thing to do. He made himself into an enemy commander, and that makes him a military target, not a criminal to be sought by law enforcement.

 Now, that said, Obama, his Attorney General, and some other liberals have  to take some responsibility for the confusion on this point. I seem to remember them saying that terrorism was "a law enforcement matter". That made for pretty good campaign talk (especially with the anti-war crowd), but as I think we have ALL learned by now, that is not an effective way to fight what is essentially a war. Hopefully, this administration, as evidenced here, has wised up on that point.

There is no violation of anyone's constitutional rights here. If I believed there was, I'd be complaining, loudly. I swore an oath to "support and defend" that same constitution, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". This individual, by the act of assuming a command position with an armed foreign enemy of the United States, became an enemy of that constitution, and by extension, a legitimate target for the U.S. Armed Forces. These, it appears, have now dealt with the matter, permanently.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 30, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> Sets a bad precedent that could come back at some future point to bite citizens in the ass. Who knows what the future holds as to what extent our government morphs towards tryanny?
> Hell, even one day 'The T', or any freedom-loving outspoken citizen could be targeted as deemed by our government in the aforementioned scenario; as a precedent, afterall, has been set.




You don't think the guy was that, do you? 

He was wanted dead or alive in Yeman.  He was an illegal belligerent operating illegally in a forgien land.  The action was taken to put a halt to future attacks on Americans.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2011)

jillian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Had Bush done it...the liberals would have had him impeached.
> ...


Looks like someone is pretty ignorant about the 9/11 report.

But, you post like you know what was in it.

Funny.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 30, 2011)

Looks like we got 2 for the price of one:
Top Saudi bomb maker.

Officials: Drone likely killed Saudi terrorist - Yahoo! News


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2011)

The guy was indicted in a US court and that's where his due process ended.

The decision for his guilt was decided based on unchallenged evidence provided by the federal government, the Executive Branch.

And the decision for his execution was decided by the administration, the Executive Branch.

Now, that's power.

I hope others ponder that for a minute or two.


----------



## Intense (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't know .... Maybe they have a point.... we can deploy the Lawyers and the circuit Courts to Iran, Pakistan, Yemen armed with pencils and I Pads to track down and give fair Trials to the Enemy Combatants. They can wear "Don't Kick Me, I come in Peace and don't mean to Offend" signs on their backs. That will work.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?


An American citizen who was a traitor, working for the enemy.  Not only am I for it, I wish we could have recovered the body and hung it on a pike in front of the Pentagon till only a husk remains.

Traitors deserve no better


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Fifth Amendment:
> ...




He was killed in Yemen. When did we declare war against Yemen?


----------



## Missourian (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Had Bush done it...the liberals would have had him impeached.
> ...




Awlaki.

It's been the liberals position that terrorists should be treated as criminals.

It seems like hypocrisy to hand down a death sentence under those circumstances without due process.


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

The Gadfly said:


> This is not a law enforcement matter; this is a WAR, and in war, you don't *arrest* the enemy, you *kill* the enemy. In this case the object of the exercise had not only allied himself with an armed enemy of the United States, he had become a part of the enemy's command structure. He is thus an enemy combatant, NOT an American (regardless of where he was born) and subject to being taken out whenever and wherever the situation permits. I see no problem with ordering the elimination of an enemy command target, none whatsoever.



What is the name of the war he was killed in?


----------



## Amelia (Sep 30, 2011)

Si modo said:


> The guy was indicted in a US court and that's where his due process ended.
> 
> The decision for his guilt was decided based on unchallenged evidence provided by the federal government, the Executive Branch.
> 
> ...




When was he indicted?  I read that he didn't even get that much.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The guy was indicted in a US court and that's where his due process ended.
> ...


Shit, he wasn't even indicted.

You're right.






Holy shit.


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

8537 said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Why is this so hard for most people to understand?


----------



## Intense (Sep 30, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



There may be more to Presidential Powers  than even Obama knew before being Sworn in. I mean besides learning how to do normal things. Things we take for granted.


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> I've been reading about Anwar al-Awlaki for almost an hour now, and his behavior seems to shadow a character who was linked to 3 9/11 hijackers, a Christmas 2010 wannabe bomber, a lot of training of alQaeda to take out American targets, and Hasan the Ft. Hood shooter who murdered 12 people at Ft. Hood in 2009.
> 
> He was lying, sneaky, intelligent, the great pretender, and traitor all rolled into one. He became a target after phone calls between him and Hasan took place shortly before. Someone bought into his case pleading his own innocence in 9/11, but he knew 3 of the hijackers, and it is now believed he helped them and had lied about not helping them.
> 
> ...



No, all we had to do was try him in absentia, convict him of treason, then his killing would be legal.


----------



## Intense (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > I've been reading about Anwar al-Awlaki for almost an hour now, and his behavior seems to shadow a character who was linked to 3 9/11 hijackers, a Christmas 2010 wannabe bomber, a lot of training of alQaeda to take out American targets, and Hasan the Ft. Hood shooter who murdered 12 people at Ft. Hood in 2009.
> ...



Again, we don't know for sure that the act was above Presidential Jurisdiction. There really may be more to this than what we see.


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> Sets a bad precedent that could come back at some future point to bite citizens in the ass. Who knows what the future holds as to what extent our government morphs towards tryanny?
> Hell, even one day 'The T', or any freedom-loving outspoken citizen could be targeted as deemed by our government in the aforementioned scenario; as a precedent, afterall, has been set.



True, and anyone who doesn't realize this is stupid.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



I think he was still wanted dead or alive by Yemen.

Anwar al-Awlaki Wanted Dead or Alive in Yemen


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > Sets a bad precedent that could come back at some future point to bite citizens in the ass. Who knows what the future holds as to what extent our government morphs towards tryanny?
> ...



So you believe he was just a freedom-loving outspoken citizen?


----------



## Intense (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > Sets a bad precedent that could come back at some future point to bite citizens in the ass. Who knows what the future holds as to what extent our government morphs towards tryanny?
> ...



If it has gone that far it is a bit late to be waking up to it, just sayin. This was planned for the exact exposure it's getting, even the timing. They put allot into this production. You don't think this could have happened with a snipers bullet, poison, an accident? This is for your benefit.


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...



I am just as glad he is dead as the rest of you, however, this is a new, unprecedented power assumed by the POTUS, a very dangerous power and an un-needed one.

There was no reason not to try him in absentia, convict him of treason, and sentence him to death. Then the result would be legal


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



The constitution clearly limits the powers of the government. The 5th amendment clearly states that people shall not be deprived of their lives without due process.


----------



## Intense (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



It may not be all that new.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...




Not only was he not a freedom- loving outspoken citizen but also was an operative in the organization that attacked us on 9-11 and continues to plot attacks against us.  It's not new nor was it illegal.  I think he was still wanted dead or alive by Yemem too.  We've been trying to kill him for a while now.  Too bad Clinton didn't have Drones in 1998 but, then again his detractors may very well have railed against him then too.


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Nothing which you said changes the fact the the POTUS ordered the death of a citizen in direct violation of the 5th ammendment.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Again I have to disagree.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think al Qeada represents a public danger worthy of granting this exception.


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 30, 2011)

Dune said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



The way I see it he had repeatedly called for jihad against all Americans which if he considered himself one would have meant jihad against him so he had already, by 'de facto', renounced his citizenship.  Besides it was the use of an international law that the administration used to target him as a terrorist. 
And people wonder why many are against international laws trumping the constitution.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...




Nothing new at all. Clinton was all lined up for the kill shot on osama..and did not take it. That does not mean he did not have the power to do so. He chose not to take the shot.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

Ok, getting a clearer picture on what the OP is discussing...the person on a battlefield taking arms up against Us soldiers is a very different circumstance from someone within the confines of the USA...you take up arms on a battlefield....be prepared for a sniper to take you out...no trial needed..sad really, but it is the way it works when the country is at war...if you fight for the enemy be prepared to be treated as the enemy and get shot back at..that is self defense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?
> ...



Was he tried in a court of law? or was the information heresay?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I remember a time when the left got all pissy when a certian adminastration let it get out that it was going to target certain laders of known terrorist country's. Do you remember that?


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?


----------



## Full-Auto (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?



The argument here is whether committing acts of terror against the US exceeds criminality.

It does. The right for due process involves criminal actions not actions of war.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?
> ...



Can you show me where in the constitution it says that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

I'm a bit confused here. What exactly is the argument?

 if someone is caught in the act of being a terrorist.
Or someone who has been deemed a terroist by the government without the benifit of a trail by their peers?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...




United States Constitution, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​
Action Performed by Military - Check

Time of War - Check

Public Danger - Check



The 5th Amendment is not applicable in time of war or when the individual is a clear public danger.  The fact of the matter is that the head of a terrorist organization that has declared war on the United States meets both conditions to be exempted from the 5th Amendments Due Process protections.



>>>>


----------



## jillian (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> If Yemen wanted him dead or alive and he was in Yemen why didn't Yemen authorities take him out?



yemen has a political problem in much the same was as pakistan did vis a vis bin laden. yemen has almost no government and is almost totally drenched in AQ and it's adherants. it is the new training ground that became hospitable as other areas became less so. we couldn't count on the yemeni government to do anything.

as for whether we were legally wrong in targeting an "american citizen" who fled to yemen and was one of the most effective means of rallying homegrown terrorists?? i haven't looked at the law on the subject.

but i can't say i'm upset with the result.


----------



## Full-Auto (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...



Dont have a copy handy.

However I have been brushing up on the federalist papers. It was in one of the topics in those essays.

If you doubt it, consider the civil war.  Its implications etc. The founders also had no issue with taking out those causing insurrection either.


----------



## jillian (Oct 1, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



not to be picky, but the federalist papers aren't law. they're an interesting read, though.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

> targeting an "american citizen" who fled to yemen



He didn't flee to Yemen, he grew up there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'm a bit confused here. What exactly is the argument?
> 
> if someone is caught in the act of being a terrorist.
> Or someone who has been deemed a terroist by the government without the benifit of a trail by their peers?



No answer yet.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

As far as I know he wasn't caught in the act of anything.  We know that the government says he exchanged emails with Hassan, but we don't know what any of those emails said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> As far as I know he wasn't caught in the act of anything.  We know that the government says he exchanged emails with Hassan, but we don't know what any of those emails said.



Who is your comment to?


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

to no one in particular...it was an in general comment.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Ok, getting a clearer picture on what the OP is discussing...the person on a battlefield taking arms up against Us soldiers is a very different circumstance from someone within the confines of the USA...you take up arms on a battlefield....be prepared for a sniper to take you out...no trial needed..sad really, but it is the way it works when the country is at war...if you fight for the enemy be prepared to be treated as the enemy and get shot back at..that is self defense.



Sorry, there was no battlefield, no declared war. 
This happened in Yemen, what war are we fighting in Yemen?


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune, you have missed my entire comments....I am not referring to this person..I am talking about when it occurs on a battlefield..that being the exception...


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



A trial, even in absentia would have determined if he were guilty.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



What war? What country did we declare war against? What is the name of this "war"?

Is there proof of public danger or is it hear-say?
Where is the proof?
Cite proof.


----------



## Intense (Oct 1, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



There are circumstances where Actions are protected under the Constitution and take precedence, or are exempt. Treaties are only one example. War Powers are another.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Dune, you have missed my entire comments....I am not referring to this person..I am talking about when it occurs on a battlefield..that being the exception...



O.K., sorry, but I have heard nearly the same argument as to why this killing was legal.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

> There are circumstances where Actions are protected under the Constitution and take precedence, or are exempt. Treaties are only one example. War Powers are another.



We aren't at war with Yemen.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Dune, you have missed my entire comments....I am not referring to this person..I am talking about when it occurs on a battlefield..that being the exception...




United States Constitution, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​

The exception to due process is for action by military in time of war or public danger, no where does it limit it to a specific battlefield.

Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States when it flew two planes into the World Trade Center, flew a plan into the Pentagon, and attempted to fly a plane into the Capital Building.

Time of War - Check

Military Action - Check


This was a military action against a terrorist organization that declared war on the United States, the head of that organization is fair game.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Thomas Jefferson - "I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > An enemy of the State is no longer a citizen. I agree with this assassination.
> ...



Are you really comparing John Lennon to an Al Qaeda terrorist?

Talk about taking things to the point of ridiculousness.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

> This was a military action against a terrorist organization that declared war on the United States, the head of that organization is fair game.



really...since when did he replace Bin Laden?  I didn't realize that he was that replacement.  I also don't see any indictment against him by the US...which they could have gotten with evidence and I would feel a miniscule better about us indiscriminately taking him out in a country we aren't at war with.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial? Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.


----------



## Intense (Oct 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...



The Federalist Papers serve as a means to interpret Intent behind the Constitution. In many cases it is they are plain and to the point, blowing away misinterpretation and misapplication. 

There are circumstances where Congress, the Courts, the Executive Branch are granted Special Powers, whether we are aware or not. Not knowing the specifics, being classified, we cannot come to a conclusion, from where we stand. Obviously, at some level, the President, Congressional Committees, and the Courts are in the loop. Because we are not, is not conclusive that They acted Illegally. My bet is that they acted on Legal Authority. If you don't like that Legal Authority, stop Further Empowering them. Reverse course. Join the Tea Party.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> It's a different experience for me to be standing alone like this against so many.  I stand in bemusement.
> 
> 
> Liberals say we shouldn't have waterboarded KSM (or anyone else) but now they're fine with targeting a specific American citizen for death without so much as an indictment.
> ...



If everyone from the left and right is calling you an idiot, the problem isn't with everyone else it's with you


----------



## Ringel05 (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



I was trying to keep it simple if you catch my drift.......


----------



## Ringel05 (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, getting a clearer picture on what the OP is discussing...the person on a battlefield taking arms up against Us soldiers is a very different circumstance from someone within the confines of the USA...you take up arms on a battlefield....be prepared for a sniper to take you out...no trial needed..sad really, but it is the way it works when the country is at war...if you fight for the enemy be prepared to be treated as the enemy and get shot back at..that is self defense.
> ...



You do realize this is no longer the 1940s?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > It's a different experience for me to be standing alone like this against so many.  I stand in bemusement.
> ...



Why is water boardng known terrorist no good but assassinating American citizens without due process a good thing?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial?



If they were in a leadership position of an organization that flew planes into building occupied by thousands of American citizens, promoted a member of the military to walk into a gathering of fellow soldiers and open fire, planted explosives in the underwear of a bomber attempting to kill hundreds, and the individual was hiding in a foreign country outside the jurisdiction of homeland law enforcement...


Ya I would.




Xchel said:


> Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.




Sorry, in time of war you don't have the ability to get search warrants and indictments to the sniper in the field that has the bad guy in his sights for a few moments.

Sorry, the scumbag was in a leadership position in an organization that brought *War* to our shores and killed our citizens.

Let the world understand, you bring on War against the United States and kill our citizens we will hunt you down and there is no whole deep enough to protect you.

I was an electronics technician and reconnaissance operator in the military, much of the time the data gathered was strategic in nature - but every once in awhile you get your hands on something that has tactical significance and you act or loose your chance to capitalize.


>>>>


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Because the constitution doesn't allow one, but does allow the other.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > It's a different experience for me to be standing alone like this against so many.  I stand in bemusement.
> ...


And imagine if Copernicus, Rutherford, Bohr, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. followed the pack, too.  That would have been pretty cool.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Perhaps someone can explain the difference between observable science and opinions on current events to you


----------



## Rozman (Oct 1, 2011)

When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
Why is this even a question?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


Perhaps someone can explain the difference between and illogical point and your post.

Wait.

There is none.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Not anyone's fault but your own that the point sailed over your head.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


Bandwagon fallacies, like yours, usually do sail over my head.  They are irrelevant.

The more you know.............


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...



So the constitution is no longer relevent?


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Uhm, no, the constitution specificaly prohibits depriving one of one's life, without due process.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The War on Terror.
> ...



Translation, my ass is getting kicked and I'm embarrassed so I will now switch to personal insults.


>>>>


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;



I guess that part must be missing from your copy of the constitution.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Again I have to disagree.
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
> 
> I think al Qeada represents a public danger worthy of granting this exception.








WorldWatcher said:


> United States Constitution, Amendment 5:
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​
> Action Performed by Military - Check
> ...







You guys are mixing up the clauses in the fifth amendment.  

The portion you are bolding and red-ing in the first clause applies to those who are serving in our armed forces.  Awlaki was not a member of our military.  

The "due process" clause is later and distinct from the first clause.  That still applies to the rest of us citizens who aren't in the U.S. military.  No exception is given in that clause for times of war or public danger.







.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Rozman said:


> When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
> Why is this even a question?



If it is that cut and dry, hold a hearing in absentia, convict of treason, if the evidence so supports, sentence to death, legal and leaves the 5th ammendment intact.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



United States Constitution, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​

Except by military forces in time of war (or clear public danger), the strike was conducted by military aircraft, al Qaeda has declared war on the United States through its actions and presents a clear public danger and the leaders were targeted because they are leader(s) in that organization.

Sorry, no Constitutional requirement there to try them in court.


>>>>


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Translation: I cited a war against a verb as justification for the murder without due process of an american citizen.

Since I don't have a legitimate reason to throw the constitution in the dumpster, I will pretend there is a declared war underway as justification for this illegal act.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I guess the fact that we are not at war with Yemen, either declared or undeclared is missing from you awareness.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Have fun with your strawman. Let us know when you want to get back on subject


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Sorry, but if Awlaki had been proven a member of AlQuaida in a trial, through the use of evidence, then your argument could work.
Rather he was executed on the basis of hearsay evidence alone.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Have fun with your future in which your government can legaly execute you by simply declaring you an enemy combatant, without providing any proof whatsoever to anyone.

When you are ready to act like an american, let me know.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Again I have to disagree.
> ...




Actually the semi-colon at the end of the first clause sets conditions applicable to all following clauses each subsequent clause is set under the conditions joined to the first clause.

During time of war the military is not subject to the same conditions for Due Process as civilian courts.  It would not be practical on the battlefield to:
(a) Detain each combatant without use of deadly force,
(b) Determine the status of each combatant,
(c) If the combatant is found to be a citizen, then continue detainment,
(d) Proceed with investigation,
(e) Convene a Grand Jury,
(f) Pending results of Grand Jury, then issue an arrest warrant,
(g) Try the person in court,
(h) Execute if found convicted of a Capital Offense (which treason is).​

The difference is that in a tactical situation you have to react within a specified time window or an opportunity is lost.


This war will not be won with typical courtroom proceedings, this war will be won by cutting the head off the snake and when a new one starts to grow you cut that off next, and you keep going until there is nothing left but the tail that will wither and die.


>>>>


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Dude, he was killed with the enemy.  He fucking deserved WORSE imho. Due process for an enemy combattant?  Are you stoned?  Did we bother with Due Process for those German Americans who took up arms for 'The Fatherland' in WW2 and fought us?  No. Please tell me that you're joking when you said this.  We usually agree on so many things.

We're talking someone who wasn't even as good as Benedict Arnold who was a true American HERO before he joined the British to betray us.  He wasn't sneaky like Alger Hiss or the Rosenthals.  He took up arms, plotted and planned to kill his fellow citizens for a foreign power for religion.

Better still for this traitorous fuck would have been wounded on the battlefield, captured and stuck in the gallows to shit himself a month hence as he starved to death at the busiest overpass of Washington DC for everyone to see with a sign beneath him that said "This is what happens to barbarous traitors to the United States", while school buses full of kids forced to look drove by.,

Maybe... just MAYBE that'd drive the point home that turning on your nation might not be a wise thing.  You may be free to talk a big game about hating this nation, but don't you fucking DARE do it!  And you're absolutely right that's revolting and disgusting, but it seems these morons aren't getting the point playing nicey nicey.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Doubling down on the strawmen, huh?

Let us know how that works out for you


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Dude, he was killed with another american.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Prove that we are in a war.
Show the legal status for this war.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...




"Hearsay evidence" is what evaluated in a courtroom proceeding.  The military does not operate the battlefield as a court proceeding when dealing with tactical situations.

What is confusing so some people is the inability to adapt to the changed war environment.  In the past "wars" have been fought against defined nation states.  Al Qaeda is not a nation state but is a terrorist organization that declared war on us.

BTW - Check the internet, you can find his videos on line.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




Already have.

When the Japanese attacked Peal Harbor and declared war on the US, are you saying we were not at war even though Congress hadn't acted yet.

When someone declares war on you, you are at war.



>>>>


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

The military does not operate the battlefield as a court proceeding when dealing with tactical situations.

There is no battlefield in Yemen, we are not at war with Yemen.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




The clause you are referring to  says that it is our military who do not always get due process.


It does not give our military the right to target our citizens.


Our citizens who are not in the military still have due process.





Now why people think that our Constitution protects KSM who is not even a citizen ... that is a subject for another day.

But Awlaki was a citizen, and not in our armed forces, so he was entitled to due process before he was put on our death list.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> The military does not operate the battlefield as a court proceeding when dealing with tactical situations.
> 
> There is no battlefield in Yemen, we are not at war with Yemen.




Never said we were at war with Yemen, we are at war with Al Qaeda and al Awlaki is (well was) a senior leader of that organization that was/is responsbile for the deaths of thousands of Americans.


>>>>


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




No.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...




Not when acting as an enemy combatant.


>>>>


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



according to the US Supreme Court enemy combatants have the right to trial.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




Yes.





>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



So we throw due process out the window?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

Xchel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




That may apply if they are captured...

.................................................. But not if they are killed on the battlefield.  No sense in holding a trial if they are dead.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 1, 2011)

>


Well it's a beautiful fall day and there is a festival in the area.


Ya'll have fun.


Be back later.


>>>>


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


and I'm SUUUUURRRREEEEEE that other American was totally innocent and blameless beyond reproach.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



What if I call Homeland Security and identify you as an enemy combatant?
What If I have 50 friends do the same, and post multiple shooped videos to prove my case against you?

Remember, you will never face your acuser in court.
You will be given no opportunity to refute the charges.
You will not be allowed legal council. 
There will be no trial, you will simply be added to a list at C.I.A. headquarters, a secret list, with no oversight.
Once you are on this list, the Constitution no longer exists for you.
This is what you say is acceptable.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

The fifth amendment is four separate clauses.  (Edit: or five clauses depending on how you count)

The first clause is about the right to a  grand jury, with an exception which for practical reasons limits the rights of service members during times of war and public nature.  

The second clause is about double jeopardy.

The third clause includes several items including due process and protection against self-incrimination.

The fourth is about property rights and encompasses what we know as eminent domain.



These are four distinct clauses.  Addressing different aspects of governmental proceedings against citizens.

The exception people are suggesting would have applied to Awlaki does not because he was not being disciplined as a member of our armed forces.


Just because he was a wretched individual is not an excuse to deprive him of due process.   The fifth amendment specifically protects wretched people  - it's about the rights of criminals.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



But there was no battlefield. Yemen is not a battlefield.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...






The rhetoric is the battlefield...  His intent was clearly and openly expressed...



Why do you pretend he was just another American citizen...???


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



He was an american citizen. 
He had every right we all do, until he was convicted of treason in a court of law (due process).
Until then, he was presumed innocent until proven guilty, the same as you or I.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

Presumption of innocence, maybe?


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



rhetoric is speech not a battlefield..what are you going to do when war is declared on the tea party?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...







I have no sympathy for him.  He chose to engage with violence and died by his own means...





> October 1, 2011 8:49 AM
> 
> Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki
> 
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

I have a question:  Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch?  Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?

Think about that.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> I have a question:  Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch?  Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?
> 
> Think about that.








I understand what you're saying, but it's not like there's no evidence of his jihad rhetoric.  He was well known for his influential messages of acceptable violence.


----------



## jillian (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question:  Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch?  Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?
> ...



but... but... it's obama's administration. we're only supposed to believe repub admins.

ya know..


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question:  Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch?  Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?
> ...


But, the source of that evidence, or the only source of that evidence that I have seen so far, comes from the Executive Branch.

Do I think this guy is most likely a POS terrorist pig?  Oh, yeah. But, he wasn't on any battlefield or in any war zone.

I would love for this to sit well with me - I cannot stand POS terrorist pigs - but it does not for fundamental reasons pertaining to our Bill of Rights.  And, yes, because he is an American, he has those rights - they are inherent rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

We shouldn't be executing persons - summarily - especially Americans, because of things they say, either.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...







There are independently verifiable quotes and witnesses to lectures which are not related to the US executive branch... They have the authority to act on that actionable intelligence.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Then I'd love to see them.  Can you point me in that direction, please?


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 1, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILObfEzX92k]Dr. Horrible&#39;s Sing-Along Blog - Brand New Day - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

They have no such authority.
The constitution is quite clear on this.
The 5th ammendment plainly states no person shall be deprived of life without due process.
Due process means evidence presented to a court which proves his guilt, then a finding of guilt by said court, then a sentence by said court. Only then would this be "actionable".


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Google is your friend...


Google


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


I guess when you make a claim, you expect others to support it for you.

Thanks, I've looked for something about him that comes from any other source - some independent source - and have not seen one.

You said there is some.

And you give me Google.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 1, 2011)

And the issue is not that the United States should not defend itself or fight terrorism, at issue is the method.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





Yeah, just little ol' me and my little ol' claim along with the President of the United States of America and the Department of Justice, etcetera, etcetera...  


Sorry I'm not your research monkey.  Yahoo!


----------



## Jos (Oct 1, 2011)

> It was first reported  in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.  No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was considering indicting him).  Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlakis father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were state secrets and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlakis inclusion on President Obamas hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.


The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality - Yemen - Salon.com

So much for swearing to uphold the constitution


----------



## manifold (Oct 1, 2011)

I guess the lesson learned here unfortunately is sometimes less transparency is better.

If they didn't make a big deal out of Al-Awlaki and simply said they'd bombed an Al Qaida convoy nobody would've given two shits.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



So you make a statement and then can't or will not back it up.
Noted. Thanks.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






You really think there aren't many witnesses who've heard his lectures...?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






You'd sooner believe the USA is Eeeevil and out to kill it's own citizens.
Duly noted.  Thanks.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Sallow is consistent; pro-death penalty, pro-abortion, pro-assasinating terrorists regardless of citizenship.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



I said that?
Cite please.
Oh, I forgot, you like to make claims you can't back up. 
Thanks for proving me correct.
You lack of credibility is noted.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the issue is not that the United States should not defend itself or fight terrorism, at issue is the method.


Bingo!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


You obviously aren't your OWN research monkey.

It is the practice of morons to make a claim and ask another to support it for them.

Congrats, Val.  

And, YOU said there were independent sources (independent of the Executive Branch) out there.  

Umm, the President and the DoJ are the Executive Branch.





Idiot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



It was military intelligence that got us into Iraq  so now whats your excuse?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





 





There are plenty of quotes and plenty of evidence but keep on pretending there isn't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Bush Cheney and company said Iraq had WMD's


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


And you have yet to back up your claim.

Until you do, your claim means nothing...just your typed words.

Yeah, right.  I'm gonna take that as gospel truth.  

Can't back it up yet, so just yammering on.

Yeah, that works.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is calling for jihad against America, claiming "America is evil" in a new audio message obtained by CNN."With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim," he says in the recording that runs more than 12 minutes.

Purported al-Awlaki message calls for jihad against U.S. - CNN


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

WASHINGTON  A federal judge heard a legal challenge on Monday to the Obama administrations decision to authorize the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, even as Mr. Awlaki, the American-born cleric tied to Al Qaeda and now hiding in Yemen, called for new attacks on the United States in a video posted to the Web.

Challenge of Decision to Kill Awlaki Is Heard - NYTimes.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

I find it whether disturbing that if this had been Bush the left would be screaming bloody murder calling for Bush Cheney heads on a silver platter. It's disturbing that those on the right approve of this and everything gose against their belief in the suppose bill of rights of American citizens. What happen to due process? Wake up people If we are going to condemn people without a trail by peers, who's to say you want be the next terrorist? We are a nation of laws. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## Intense (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I find it whether disturbing that if this had been Bush the left would be screaming bloody murder calling for Bush Cheney heads on a silver platter. It's disturbing that those on the right approve of this and everything gose against their belief in the suppose bill of rights of American citizens. What happen to due process? Wake up people If we are going to condemn people without a trail by peers, who's to say you want be the next terrorist? We are a nation of laws. Wake the fuck up.



Valid concern, yet I bet the Legal side was covered before the action was taken.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it whether disturbing that if this had been Bush the left would be screaming bloody murder calling for Bush Cheney heads on a silver platter. It's disturbing that those on the right approve of this and everything gose against their belief in the suppose bill of rights of American citizens. What happen to due process? Wake up people If we are going to condemn people without a trail by peers, who's to say you want be the next terrorist? We are a nation of laws. Wake the fuck up.
> ...



Be it Republican held or democratic held I do not trust my government when everything it has done gones against my belief in the Constitutional law system.


----------



## Intense (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Fair. No Government is beyond question or account. This action is plainly and clearly out in the open. There is no cover up here. The Target was in a Country where there is allot of hatred towards us. He was hostile towards us. I expect as things develop, we will hear the Administrations defense of the Action. 

At this point I won't fault Obama. Funny how, this division crosses Party lines. That in itself I see as a a very good thing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Mentioning cover up thats a whole different subject and a different board. This action really isn't in the open nothing has changed obama has taken the controls from bush and it's full steam a head. The left went after bush for the very same thiung obama is doing. Yet they will deny it.

Now something is not right in the system.


----------



## The Gadfly (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a law enforcement matter; this is a WAR, and in war, you don't *arrest* the enemy, you *kill* the enemy. In this case the object of the exercise had not only allied himself with an armed enemy of the United States, he had become a part of the enemy's command structure. He is thus an enemy combatant, NOT an American (regardless of where he was born) and subject to being taken out whenever and wherever the situation permits. I see no problem with ordering the elimination of an enemy command target, none whatsoever.
> ...



I think it's called the "Global War on Terrorism". I really don't care what it is called. In case you forgot, these people started this with an unprovoked attack on our nation on 11 September, 2001. We are going to finish it, along with finishing Al Quaeda and its allies, however long that takes, and no matter how many enemy bodies we have to pile up, blow up, vaporize, or otherwise destroy in the process. That specifically includes any "American" who becomes a soldier and/or commander in the enemy cause. Had I been personally ordered to hunt down and execute this dirtbag, I would have had no problem whatever obeying that order. *Why? Because it is a lawful order, no matter what party occupies the White House; a thing I want the liberals here to note, the next time a republican president issues such an order! *The same goes for anyone else who allies himself/herself with an armed foreign enemy in combat against the United States of America. Such a person becomes, by that act, a foreign enemy combatant, no longer subject to the protections provided by the constitution of the United States.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

The Gadfly said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



You do realize obama used Americas military to help Al Quaeda in libya?


----------



## Intense (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Yeah, that truly bug's me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...


Like I said most will cheer what's happening because it's Americas  "enemy" But when we trun around and help the people we are still fighting something is not right with the system. People need to get oiff this joy juice they are drinking and get away from the political fog and clear their heads before they cheer themself into something they will not be able to escape from.


----------



## Intense (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Hey, when Mexico starts building the Wall to keep us out, start worrying.


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



That's spin and you know it.

I've just come into this thread and I was wondering what position you would take.
Especially after your thread suggesting that you would have shot the two cops dead that beat the homeless guy to death, before asking any questions.
In other words, without 'due process'.

Interesting...


----------



## Intense (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



Complex, if he is a Retired NC Cop, and something went down there, he would have every legal Right to actually intervene, not with a gun, but a Badge. Yes he was seriously off base out of State. 

There is another scenario, if you were driving in a remote location, and came across two Cop's literally preparing to execute Someone, what would you do if there was a chance to save a Life? I know what BigRebNC would do without asking.


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



'Complex' is the right word.
Complexity and nuances are seldom allowed for on this forum though I'm afraid.

Personally, I hope I would be able to make a decision that I could live with, and damn the law.

If what I've read about this New Mexican in Yemen is true, then I'm relaxed that he's been killed.
Whether it can be defended legally or not I don't know but it's a good result as far as I'm concerned.
Sometimes, a government needs to take the initiative to protect it's citizens without stopping for permission - surely protecting it's citizens is one of the key roles of government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...





> That's spin and you know it.



How is this comment spin?



> You do realize obama used Americas military to help Al Quaeda in libya



The rebel generals admitted that the rebels were Al Quaeda.



> I've just come into this thread and I was wondering what position you would take.
> Especially after your thread suggesting that you would have shot the two cops dead that beat the homeless guy to death, before asking any questions.
> In other words, without 'due process'.



to kill two people in order to stop them from killing someone versus going after someone who has been charged with a crime with the specific intent to kill them it to totally different things.

I truely believe that obama's action is totaly politically motivated. The left is going along with it because it's obama doing it the right's going along with it because it what Bush did.  something in this mixture isnot quit right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



unless all the evidence is presented in a court of law in front of a jury we will never know what is true and what is politically motivated.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'm a former cop not retired.


I've asked this one time before whats the difference between shooting a gang of thugs to defend a life and two thug cops going way above what they were trained to do?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 1, 2011)

Rozman said:


> When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
> Why is this even a question?


I don't know, Rozman. We have some sensitive people who aren't sure an American can be an enemy when he coordinates amenities for 9/11 hijackers (3 of them) which results in the deaths of 3,000 Americans, and his phone cell calls implicate him in every terrorist attack and wannabe terrorist attackon American soil that's happened in the past few years. I think the last straw may have been the Fort Hood incident when the shooter contacted him several times before actually committing the treason and murders against 12 fellow Americans.

Some are confused about whether to try this moron in court first or just take him out. Why give these terrorists a soapbox when they've already taken out thousands of Americans and want a bigger, bloodier tally yet plus the bonus of cry towelling the people of this nation which could get really divisive and nastier than it already is.


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Maybe your position is politically motivated.
Take your spin on Libya for example.

I would say that 'going after someone who has been charged with a crime...' shows some due process, as opposed to shooting someone on the spot.

I'm not saying it is legal or not...I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect neither are you.
But, at the end of it all, if this guy has been up to what they say he has been, then I'm happy that he's dead and that your government did it.

Just as an aside...was OBL ever tried and convicted and sentenced to death following 'due process'?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...





> Take your spin on Libya for example.



Before we go in further I want you to explain how is what I said spin?


Here's the comment that your saying I spined on



> I think it's called the "Global War on Terrorism". I really don't care what it is called. In case you forgot, these people started this with an unprovoked attack on our nation on 11 September, 2001. We are going to finish it, along with finishing Al Quaeda and its allies, however long that takes, and no matter how many enemy bodies we have to pile up, blow up, vaporize, or otherwise destroy in the process. That specifically includes any "American" who becomes a soldier and/or commander in the enemy cause. Had I been personally ordered to hunt down and execute this dirtbag, I would have had no problem whatever obeying that order. The same goes for anyone else who allies himself/herself with an armed foreign enemy in combat against the United States of America. Such a person becomes, by that act, a foreign enemy combatant, no longer subject to the protections provided by the constitution of the United States.



Al Quaeda is the enemy. obama used Americas military in support of the libyan rebel who were Al Quaeda  the same people we are still fighting. Since when is the truth spin?


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Because the Libyan rebels are not Al Quaeda.
Sure, there are Al Quaeda elements in there but that isn't the same thing.
Al Quaeda will also be hoping to get some sort of spin-off from the revolution but the rebels are not Al Quaeda.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



It was confirmed by the rebel generals that the rebels were Al Quaeda. Do you have anything else to offer?


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> ...
> 
> Sometimes, a government needs to take the initiative to protect it's citizens without stopping for permission - surely protecting it's citizens is one of the key roles of government.




In a matter of imminent threat, they would need to act without stopping for permission.

That's not what we had here.

They had YEARS to indict this guy, to invite him or a proxy to  speak on his behalf in either a military or civilian court, to convict, and to sentence him.



They sentenced this American citizen to death almost two years ago, without trial, and without any attempt to seek indictment in the intervening period.   They turned back the father pleading for due process for his son.  They had so much time to do this properly.


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Are you maybe talking about this guy?


> Abdel Hakim Belhadj, 45, is one of the most powerful men of the new Libya. From this point on, the security of Tripoli depends on him.
> ..................
> The goal of this organization was to deliver the Libyan people from the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi. We never had any interest outside of our country. The Islamic combat group was never a part of al-Qaeda, neither from an ideological viewpoint, nor at an operational level, nor in its goals. It happened that we found ourselves in the same place at the same time as al-Qaeda: in Afghanistan, where we sometimes fought next to them when it was to liberate the country, but we were never at their service.
> 
> ...


'We Are Simply Muslim': Libyan Rebel Chief Denies Al-Qaeda Ties - TIME

Your move I think.


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yeah, I'm sure if they'd simply issued a summons he would have turned up to court in his best suit.

Look, I'm not saying it's legal or moral but - again with the caveat of only knowing what's written about him in the paper - it seems that he was a bad bloke with evil intentions towards America and was prepared to act on those intentions or recruit/encourage others to act for him.
It looks like a good result to me I'm sorry.

How do you feel about the killing of Osama?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Nope not even close

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

And before you deny it why would he say it if it wasn't true, and fear lossing the help from American militiary?


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




No he  wouldn't have shown up to a trial.  But he needed to be invited.  

Killing Osama is a different subject since he wasn't an American citizen.  Osama wasn't protected by our Constitution.

I'm glad that Osama won't be ordering any more attacks on us.  And if they had to kill him to make that happen, they had to do it.   But that's a completely different matter from specifically targeting an American citizen for death without indicting him first.

If they engaged Awlaki's hideout in battle and he was killed because he was where he shouldn't be, that would have been understandable.  But that would also have been completely different from what actually happened.  Our government marked a citizen for death, with plenty of time to dot the constitutional i's and cross the constitutional t's, but didn't even make an effort.


----------



## The Gadfly (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Well, now, we didn't exactly pick this guy up on Main St. USA, and take him out and shoot him, now did we? Fact-he was an Al Quaeda recruiter, propagandist and commander, operating out of an Al Quaeda safe-house in Yemen that turned out to be no-so-safe! That, in my book, is an enemy combatant; period, paragraph, end of discussion. Do excuse me for not caring a bout whether a traitor and terrorist got his "due process", or not; a missile, or a bullet in the head, was all the due process this germ deserved.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

The Gadfly said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




It's all good fun until the government targets you or someone you care about.  What is to stop them from doing that?

The Constitution used to.

What do you have now?


----------



## The Gadfly (Oct 1, 2011)

Dune said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






Oh I guess that sort of CONFIRMATION is just fine when it's conveeenient for a deflection in your little pea brain, huh?  Keep pretending there was no CONFIRMATION of what Anwar al-Awlaki was up to though...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




try again

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

And before you deny it why would he say it if it wasn't true, and fear lossing the help from American militiary?


And I posted thaat because this comment was made



> I think it's called the "Global War on Terrorism". I really don't care what it is called. In case you forgot, these people started this with an unprovoked attack on our nation on 11 September, 2001. We are going to finish it, along with finishing Al Quaeda and its allies, however long that takes, and no matter how many enemy bodies we have to pile up, blow up, vaporize, or otherwise destroy in the process. That specifically includes any "American" who becomes a soldier and/or commander in the enemy cause. Had I been personally ordered to hunt down and execute this dirtbag, I would have had no problem whatever obeying that order. The same goes for anyone else who allies himself/herself with an armed foreign enemy in combat against the United States of America. Such a person becomes, by that act, a foreign enemy combatant, no longer subject to the protections provided by the constitution of the United States.



But do continue defending obama it's par for the course stupid people will always do that.


----------



## The Gadfly (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Well, aside from the fact that I have not committed treason, AND in effect renounced my citizenship by claiming to be a citizen of a foreign country, in which I was residing AND acting as a terrorist commander AND an unlawful combatant in the active service of an armed enemy of my country, not much. Then again, the constitution protects me as a citizen living within and subject to American law and jurisprudence. Once again, international terrorism is a military, not a law enforcement, matter. Do excuse me for having once been someone whose duty it was to kill enemy combatants, and for NOT having a problem with "enemy identification".


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

Amelia said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



You're completely right but strangely...I don't care, I'm glad he's gone.
Odd eh?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






It is you who looks stoopid with every single post constantly changing the subject away from the truth about Anwar al-Awlaki...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Read this  again that is if you read



> I think it's called the "Global War on Terrorism". I really don't care what it is called. In case you forgot, these people started this with an unprovoked attack on our nation on 11 September, 2001. We are going to finish it, along with finishing Al Quaeda and its allies, however long that takes, and no matter how many enemy bodies we have to pile up, blow up, vaporize, or otherwise destroy in the process. That specifically includes any "American" who becomes a soldier and/or commander in the enemy cause. Had I been personally ordered to hunt down and execute this dirtbag, I would have had no problem whatever obeying that order. The same goes for anyone else who allies himself/herself with an armed foreign enemy in combat against the United States of America. Such a person becomes, by that act, a foreign enemy combatant, no longer subject to the protections provided by the constitution of the United States.




I did not change the subject I am within the context of what this post mentioned


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Do please quote me the part of your link that says that all the rebels are Al Qaeda.
I must be blind, I can't see it at all.

Also, it's the same bloke that I quoted before but your quote is heavily edited from March whereas mine was an interview from September.

Try again.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It was military intelligence that got us into Iraq  so now whats your excuse?






bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bush Cheney and company said Iraq had WMD's






bigrebnc1775 said:


> I find it whether disturbing that if this had been Bush the left would be screaming bloody murder calling for Bush Cheney heads on a silver platter.






  BEHOLD LittleReb's BIG argument against killing Anwar al-Awlaki...  ^^


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



So now you're going to try and split hairs? Is al-Qaeda America's enemy? Is al-Qaeda the people we are fighting in Iaq? Was it reported that al-Qaeda was fighting in Libya?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Try reading THIS dipshit:


*American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is calling for jihad against America, claiming "America is evil" in a new audio message obtained by CNN."With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim," he says in the recording...
*
Purported al-Awlaki message calls for jihad against U.S. - CNN


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > It was military intelligence that got us into Iraq  so now whats your excuse?
> ...



No stupid bitch my argument has never changed Any American citizen has due process of the law, and have certain inalienable rights protected in the Constitution.

I just find it disturbing that the left 3 years ago were pissed because Bush didn't  mirandized  anyone captured on the battlefield but yet now it's ok to side step the Constitution and assassinate American citizens. And it's even more disturbing that those on the right the so called defenders of the constitution are happy about it to.

It's either we do it the Constitutional way or do it the barbarian way without any rule of law to protect people from an over baring power hungry government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



A newpaper reported him saying that? Did you hear him say that?

If you did not hear him say it then i a court of law that information would be thrown out.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...









Back in the place we call REALITY al-Awlaki's case is the one that got thrown out>>>








Valerie said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

> I just find it disturbing that the left 3 years ago were pissed because Bush didn't mirandized anyone captured on the battlefield but yet now it's ok to side step the Constitution and assassinate American citizens. And it's even more disturbing that those on the right the so called defenders of the constitution are happy about it to.



I am not necesarily right or left, but I am just as pissed about it now as I was when Bush did it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





He's dead now.   



Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions...  Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions...  Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...




According to the laws of our land he _WAS_ innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law.  Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury.  It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!  

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well.  I mean, you MUST be guilty of _SOMETHING!_


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



I'm not pretending anything. If we don't follow the Constitution it becomes worthless and nobody's rights are protected or safe. Those witness would have to take the stand and admit they heard him say it under oath. otherwise it's nothing but hearsay and worthy only to be printed in the tabliods.


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not *amicable* in a court of law.



WTF is THAT supposed to mean?  I have never heard the term 'amicable in a court of law.'  

But here's a flash for you.  Some hearsay IS most definitely admissible (if that is what you intended.)  The state of TN has 19 codified hearsay exceptions and one case law excetion.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





It's not that they did go after an innocent citizen.  It's that now they can.   

The Bill of Rights was written to take that kind of decision out of political hands.  

The Bill of Rights has been torn in half.  A bright red line has been crossed.  From here on out, the criteria for who gets constitutional protections is going to be blurred more and more.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions...  Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...
> ...





Good point.  I overlooked that in my answer above.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions...  Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...
> ...






No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death.  He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not *amicable* in a court of law.
> ...



OMG how old are you?

Amicable action 
An action commenced and maintained by the mutual consent and arrangement of the parties to obtain a judgment of a court on a doubtful Question of Law that is based upon facts that both parties accept as being correct and complete.

The action is considered amicable because there is no dispute as to the facts but only as to the conclusions of law that a judge can reach from consideration of the facts. An amicable action is considered a Justiciable controversy because there is a real and substantive disagreement between the parties as to the appropriate relief to be granted by the court.

Other names for an amicable action are a case agreed on, a case stated, or a friendly suit.


If evidence does not meet these requirements then it would be inamicable 
Amicable action legal definition of Amicable action. Amicable action synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Inamissible and its Opposite 

Bill Long 8/10/05

One of the words that lawyers dread hearing after they have attempted to introduce something into evidence is a ruling from the bench that it is "inadmissible." Something is inadmissible because it violates one of the hearsay rules, it isn't relevant, it is redundant or is highly prejudicial. Because of a spate of law-oriented TV shows and celebrity trials in the past decade or so, the general American public knows this word now. It is one of the few five-syllable words that flows effortlessly from the lips of great and small alike.* America, however, doesn't know is aural cousin, inamissible. Something inamissible is "not liable to be lost." The word ought to have 
Inamissible and inadmissible and amissible and amissibility


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



"Intel"....just another word for 'evidence' which was NOT presented to a court of law.  The man was an American citizen who was murdered by Obama without due process.  Since you so freely CHOOSE to deny citizens their Constitutional protections, then we can safely assume you will offer up your most precious loved one for assassination the minute he does something Obama might not approve of.  You have no clue how close this case brings that to actually happening.


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



How any of that relates to this discussion is beyond me.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

As I said all you've got is hypothetical la la land...  The rules of engagement have not changed from what they've always been...  WHY didn't he turn himself in once the court threw out his father's attempt to protect him?  Instead HE CHOSE to stay in harms way and continue with his violent rhetoric...  He was counting on dopes like you all to further undermine America and pretend we are doomed to go after innocents.  You all would sooner believe THAT lie than a man who openly ADMITTED to intentions of killing innocents.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





Actionable intelligence which was so non-pressing that they waited almost two years between putting him on the kill list and actually doing the deed.

They had plenty of time to do this right.  He was not carrying a bomb into the country.  He did not present an imminent danger.  A serious threat ... presumably so ... but not an imminent threat.

There was no reason they could not have indicted him.  If at some point he presented an imminent threat during an attempt to give him due process then it would have been fair for them to have acted.  But they didn't even try to go through the motions.  

There was no reason to put him on a death list without a conviction.


A watch list would have been sufficient until there was a verdict or until he made a more overt action.  No reason to literally mark him for death without due process.  



No reason to tell the rest of us citizens that the Bill of Rights is only paper.




Did you listen to Jay Carney dodge Jake Tapper's questions about this?  Carney was practically incoherent.  The administration was nakedly wrong and Carney had no defense whatsoever.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 1, 2011)

imminent threat would be like if they shot down the plane that was going to crash into the White House, Flight 93...yet they didn't shoot it down because they didn't get into the air in time before the plane crashed...but that is what immenent danger is...not someone who says they are waging jihad on a video.


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 1, 2011)

Valerie said:


> As I said all you've got is hypothetical la la land...  The rules of engagement have not changed from what they've always been...  WHY didn't he turn himself in once the court threw out his father's attempt to protect him?  Instead HE CHOSE to stay in harms way and continue with his violent rhetoric...  He was counting on dopes like you all to further undermine America and pretend we are doomed to go after innocents.  You all would sooner believe THAT lie than a man who openly ADMITTED to intentions of killing innocents.



Rules of engagement my ass!  You don't even use terms correctly.  You have no clue what you are even parroting.  The SCOTUS has consistently held that terrorists are criminals. And that they are entitled to due process.   Where is the law that says 'violent rhetoric' is a capital offense?  Miss know it all!


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > As I said all you've got is hypothetical la la land...  The rules of engagement have not changed from what they've always been...  WHY didn't he turn himself in once the court threw out his father's attempt to protect him?  Instead HE CHOSE to stay in harms way and continue with his violent rhetoric...  He was counting on dopes like you all to further undermine America and pretend we are doomed to go after innocents.  You all would sooner believe THAT lie than a man who openly ADMITTED to intentions of killing innocents.
> ...





  I'm not parroting anything...  


I'm sure YOU know it all so much better than all the top legal scholars...  


> Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said *U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.*
> 
> "*Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable*," Anderson said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

I hope it never someone you know that some guy determines is a terrorist without due process and selects for execution...


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> I hope it never someone you know that some guy determines is a terrorist without due process and selects for execution...





Do you care about the innocents the Jihadists choose for execution?  


*About Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj Nidal Malik Hasan:

Mr Hasan, accused of shooting dead 13 people at the military base, had seen Awlaki preach in Virginia in 2001 and received religious advice from him by email.

Awlaki told al-Jazeera after the November 2009 attack: "Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.

"My support to the operation was because the operation brother Nidal carried out was a courageous one."
*



If someone I know ever praises and orchestrates Jihad against America then they are fair game...


_*"Fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils.

"Fighting them is what is called for at this time. We have reached a point where it is either us or them.

"We are two opposites that will never come together. What they want can only be accomplished by our elimination. Therefore this is a defining battle."*_

BBC News - In quotes: Anwar al-Awlaki


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



All the information that you use for any of your arguments on this forum are technically hearsay then...including your link to the rebel leader saying that there are Al Quaeda fighters among the Libyan rebels.

Sorry...I've lost track...what was your point again?


----------



## yidnar (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?


he renounced his citizenship !!!


----------



## Bosun (Oct 2, 2011)

if the "american" is a misunderstander and terrorist, sure, why not.   The two dirt bags that were taken to room temperature in Yemen, good for them.  Adam Gadahn, &#1593;&#1586;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1605;&#1585;&#1610;&#1603;&#1610; , is high on the target list, too.


----------



## Bosun (Oct 2, 2011)

Bosun said:


> if the "american" is a misunderstander and terrorist, sure, why not.   The two dirt bags that were taken to room temperature in Yemen, good for them.  Adam Gadahn, &#1593;&#1586;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1605;&#1585;&#1610;&#1603;&#1610; , is high on the target list, too.


By the way, Fitnah is much better than Fitrah....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





> I've lost track...what was your point again



You're not an American citizen so you would not understand


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Asking this makes me wonder why you're in this discussion? You're bouncing of every reply you make like a rubber ball, one timne when you make a reply to someone else you are agreeing with what I say then you respond to me and you seem to be disagreeing. It relates to one reply that was made in this discussion please keep the fuck up.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



*I win*...too easy!!!!

Go on...give me another one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



ok let's put so even a new zealand sheep hearder like you can understand it. The rebel General is not on trial and threrfore his words quoted by the paper is not heresay unless it was to be used in a court of law.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



But...according to you Awlaki was never put on trial either.
Therefore the arguments are the same.

More, more, this is too easy!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



does 2+2= 4 in New Zealand? the rebel general was not on a thug hit list and was not looking to go to court the other was

do you have anymore halfwited retorts?


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Pardon?
So you're saying that being on the hitlist is as good as being given a summons?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


He sentenced himself to death by joining a terrorist group that is at war with the US.

If this had happened during WW2, the military would also have been justified in taking out a traitor that threw in his lot with the Nazis.

Sorry that you are so upset about this terrorist but that's just the way it goes.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?




If the "Tea Party" was an organization built upon killing American Citizens...

If the "Tea Party" was an organization that had orchestrated the mass murder of American citizens by flying airliners into three large, populated buildings...

If as an operational leader in the "Tea Party" you were involved with an Army Major that was encouraged to walk into a group of fellow soldiers and commit mass murder by opening fire into the group...

If as an operational leader you had helped coordinate the attempted explosion of an American airliner in an attempt to kill hundreds of people...

If as an American citizen you had fled the United States to a country where you could not be arrested and extradited back to the United States to stand trial...

If as an American citizen, over the course of years, you failed to present yourself to that counties United States Embassy in a peaceful manner to submit to arrest but instead choose to continue to hide and evade capture...

And if, while acting as the head of this terrorist organization, the United States Congress provides that the use of deadly force is authorized in national defense to prevent future incidents of terrorism and the death of United States citizens as they did with the Authorization For Use Of Military Force (Authorization for Use of Military Force- Sept. 18, 2001)




Then ya, there would be authorization for those leaders being placed on a "Capture or Kill" list.



>>>>


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?




_*How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government. *_

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-27/...rebellion-arms-second-amendment?_s=PM:OPINION


----------



## Colin (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?



Were you Nero in another life?


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

since he was a tyrant and a murderer as well as extravagant I would say no...especially since I think it is wrong to execute someone without at the very least a trial.


----------



## Colin (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> since he was a tyrant and a murderer as well as extravagant I would say no...especially since I think it is wrong to execute someone without at the very least a trial.



Oh. I was so sure you must have been given that he fiddled while Rome burned.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

No, he burned Rome himself when he lit the fire to try to make room for an expansion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?
> ...



The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

George Washington also lead another revolt, I think you may have heard of it, the American Revolution, then again maybe not.

And from other actions of Washington He would lead a revolt against what we call a government now.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...





Try reading for comprehension, numbskull.   

I know this spoils all your militia fantasies and all, so I hate to break it to you... *There's no right of revolution in a democracy!*


----------



## Colin (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> No, he burned Rome himself when he lit the fire to try to make room for an expansion.



Yes, but perhaps you miss the analogy. Whingeing about due process for a foreign based terrorist who has publicly declared war against the USA and the West is laughable if not futile. Have you ANY idea how long it would take to bring shits like this to face due process? But hey, you continue to let your bleeding heart rule your head. Meanwhile those you seek to protect will continue to strive to kill you. Any rights this animal had were relinquished when he made Americans throughout the world a legitimate target for death. As I said in another thread, do you really believe the shit considered himself an American?


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

we had 2 years...in fact, when he came to the US we RELEASED him...so tell me if he was a terrorist why did we do that? Shouldn't we have sent him to Gitmo? That would have resolved the problem....oh that is right we didn't have anything to charge him with..no evidence...just you tube stuff about him blathering..since when is speech suddenly forbidden because it is anti american?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



FUCKWIT you do realize a democracy breeds tyrants? A democracy is majority rules over the minority. The majority can rule that a certain group of people have no rights.

One more time Thomas Jefferson 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. 

And George Washington would lead a revolt aginst the current form of government we have.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> we had 2 years...in fact, when he came to the US we RELEASED him...so tell me if he was a terrorist why did we do that? Shouldn't we have sent him to Gitmo? That would have resolved the problem....oh that is right we didn't have anything to charge him with..no evidence...just you tube stuff about him blathering..since when is speech suddenly forbidden because it is anti american?






He had his chance to come forward when his father had his lawsuit thrown out of court but he chose to remain an unlawful enemy combatant.  He continued for years with his violent rhetoric directly threatening American innocents...  Ultimately he had another chance in the end to turn himself in and again he made his choice and sealed his own fate.  



> The elite unit and army soldiers surrounded a village and tried to persuade local leaders to hand al-Awlaki over, a member of the unit told the paper.
> 
> "We stayed a whole week, but the villagers were supporting him," the counterterrorism officer, who is not authorized to speak on the record," told the Times. "The local people began firing on us, and we fired back, and while it was happening, they helped him to escape."




Official: Al-Awlaki's death will make al-Qaida afraid - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




WRONG.  



_There is a powerful image in our collective consciousness: the Minutemen, armed with their own muskets, rushing to Concord Green and the North Bridge in Lexington to prevent British troops from seizing a militia arsenal at Concord. We assume the Founders enshrined this tradition -- a right of armed citizens to resist governmental oppression -- in our Constitution with the Second Amendment.

That assumption is wrong.

First, it overlooks a critical distinction. The Minutemen were not going to war with their own government. They were going to war with British forces. Yes, of course, the American colonies were part of the British Empire. But Americans increasingly had come to see British forces as a foreign army of occupation.

At the center of their thinking was the fact that the American colonies were unrepresented in Parliament. Whig ideology of the day -- widely accepted on both sides of the Atlantic -- was that no democratic government could become tyrannical over the people it represented. Americans believed that it was because they were unrepresented that Parliament had few qualms about imposing oppressive taxation on them. Their cry was, "No taxation without representation."

Second, the assumption overlooks history.

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice._


Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts *raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.
*

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.



_The militia the Founders envisioned was not an adversary of government but an instrument of government, organized by Congress and subject to governmental authority. It was not a tool for insurrection but, as the Constitution itself states, a tool to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."_


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



_

What does the insurrectionist idea mean for us today?

Ideas have consequences. But the insurrectionist idea extends beyond debates about guns and the Second Amendment. It reinforces the image of the government and the people being at odds.

In a democracy, however, the government is the people's government. Of course, we did not all vote for whomever now sits in the White House and Congress. We are a large and vital democracy -- not a village of Stepford wives -- and there is much about which we disagree. The majority, moreover, can be wrong. Sometimes we are boiling mad, and with good reason.

And yet, if we are to preserve the Republic, we cannot see our own government as an enemy. That does not mean we should be a placid people.

We must be eternally vigilant about government errors and abuse. But we must recognize that differences of opinion are the normal order of things. *In a constitutional democracy, we correct errors through constitutional means.*_


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

Actually We are a Federalist, Constitutional Republic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Wrong about what?
That a democracy breeds tryants?
That in a Democracy the majority rules and can bring back slavery or restrict the rights of the minority?
That George Washington Lead a revolt called the American Revolution?
That Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
DEMOCRACY: 

A government of the masses. 
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. 
Results in mobocracy. 
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. 
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. 
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

So in a Democracy if the majority wants to revolt yes they can.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?
> ...


You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution.  Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party?  Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...






I never persecuted the Tea Party.  Treason is treason and precedent matters.


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

This is a Non Violent Protest, not Armed Rebellion, Not Insurrection.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



precedent matters? Yes it does when it fits your form of government let's just forget about everything else.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

Intense said:


> This is a Non Violent Protest, not Armed Rebellion, Not Insurrection.



really is it? After all they are calling for taking up arms against the US government..that is after all what a revolution is...and they are calling for it.

This guy never took up arms against the government, he never was on a battlefield...we only know this that he was a propagandist..which is what the Wall STreet protesters also are...you are creating a slippery slope if it is allowed for one propagandist...what makes it wrong for another one?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...



MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > This is a Non Violent Protest, not Armed Rebellion, Not Insurrection.
> ...



Link on the Wall Street Protest calling for Insurrection?  ..... Pretty Please? ......


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Remember that.  The Tea Party is demanding a redress of grievances as provided in the First Amendment.  

Cornell West, code pink, Trumka, and much of the activist left are demanding violent revolution to replace the government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



What I meant to say was he would have been tried and convicted of treason using Fizt historical examples


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


He preached non violence and a change in government through the system.  Malcolm X preached violence.

By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

Treason, with strong Purpose, and by design, is very hard to convict on.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

This poll is helping to restore my faith in my fellow Americans.  

When I started the poll, I felt very much in the minority.  It took two days for the numbers to even out but now 50% of the respondents are against or uncertain about targeting an American citizen for death without bringing charges against him first.

This gives me more hope for the future of our Constitution.

We still have to face the reality of the precedent which was set but I am very grateful that people here and across the nation are taking this seriously.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.  


Yeah, precedent matters indeed..


In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.





Xchel said:


> *Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? *






_*


How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

*_


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
> ...



We are a nation governed by the rule of law.
The Bill Of Rights specific purpose is to limit the powers of the federal government.
A trial would not have been a soapbox for a terrorist, for two reasons;
1. It would have been a secret trial.
2. He would have been tried in absentia.

Do you think this is the first time adhereing to the Constitution was inconvenient?

You can't imagine the doors of opportunity this action and the general public's acceptance of it have opened for government abuse of power.

This is no longer a slippery slope, but a slimy pit.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> _*
> 
> 
> How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.
> ...









There is a difference between responding to violent action with violence and specifically marking a specific citizen for death without formally filing charges against him.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Prove it. 

Post these laws which directly contradict the 5th ammendment.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > _*
> ...






The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad.  The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process.  HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians.  The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I Hope the Action was Justified, I assume it was Legal, even if we are not privy to the technicalities. There is Precedence, and there are Special Powers, and there is due process. No way, this wasn't signed off on.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

What precedence?
Cite?
As far as I know, every president who has tried to assume special powers during wartime has been rebuked afterwards.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...







No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> What precedence?
> Cite?
> As far as I know, every president who has tried to assume special powers during wartime has been rebuked afterwards.



We will see soon enough. I predict he will come out untouched, but wiser. This was not done out in the open, by accident. It could been done differently and avoided this. You have a valid argument, I'm not arguing against that. We in the end are dealing with checks and balances, at least until the time that we totally abandon them. I suspect that there were Members of both Branches of Congress and The Court, that were in the loop.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2011)

> The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...


All of which is irrelevant as a justification of suspension of due process. 



> No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.



I dont know about the poster to whom youre responding, but I have cited both Constitutional case law and Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requiring due process for those accused of being enemy combatants and/or accused of treason. 

Consequently: its incumbent upon you to cite case law justifying suspension of due process per the criteria youve noted.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...
> 
> 
> All of which is irrelevant as a justification of suspension of due process.
> ...



Satan has just reserved round trip ticket to hawaii to escape cold spell in hell. We agree.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 2, 2011)

Some of you people are mighty stupid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Three years ago you would have said this was unconstitutional and we would agree but now you think it's the right thing to do. Why the change......oh never mind I know why the CHANGE. It's something you might believe in if it ever hapopened.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Some of you people are mighty stupid.



We agree.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Some of you people are mighty stupid.




The list of "stupid" Americans might be quite long and interesting before all is said and done about this topic.

I am impressed by and proud of  the people who are coming forth in defense of the Constitution.

I am vastly surprised to find myself on the same side as Rachel Maddow and on a different side from Dick Cheney.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Some of you people are mighty stupid.
> ...



Why have a Constitution if you aren't going to follow it? It's supposed to protect rights not be used to hinder them.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





 


Don't pretend to know what I hypothetically thought 3 yrs ago, mister mini militiaman.  




La la la la la la laaaand............


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



I am not pretending one bit. You are the classical modern day liberal party line dumbass.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...
> 
> 
> All of which is irrelevant as a justification of suspension of due process.
> ...





He had ample opportunity for his due process as he was well aware of formal legal proceedings against him...  He CHOSE the path to his own death instead.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...
> ...





What formal legal proceedings?  

Not that merely initiating legal proceedings would be enough to justify a death sentence, but what formal legal proceedings are you referring to?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



What the government did was kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activaty. Now if you can get that to pass the constitution you might have an argument.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



No.  He was an absolutely known quantity.  We know what he preached and who he recruited.  We know he had a measure of "success" as defined by him and his filthy murderous ilk.

Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war.  The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an American doesn't change what he was at the root of it all:  a leader of the enemy in time of war.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...





First of all, there were several legal proceedings where witness testimony was held against him on the record as well as testimony before congress and before a federal judge.  He openly admitted his intentions of killing innocent American citizens to which there are numerous witnesses.  Posted in the thread earlier, there was federal case that was thrown out of court...  His father tried to challenge US authority against him and the court ruled the father had no standing to file for his son (though he could have filed for himself) so he was well aware of the charges against him yet he chose to remain at large anyway.  He hid away from his opportunity for due process and chose to be, not only an unlawful enemy combatant against his country, but an inspirational leader to all other unlawful enemy combatants against the USA.  

Do you think in the previously cited two other occurrences in our history of armed rebellion against our country that each of the dead citizens received their due process before being shot in the face by George Washington...?


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





If/since he was a known quantity it should not have been hard to get a conviction.  

If it would have been hard to get a conviction then there was something wrong with our intel and that would have been grounds to proceed with greater caution.

Our constitution didn't apply to Goebbels.  It did apply to Awlaki.  At least it should have.


Now I don't know who it applies to.  Where is the line now?


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



You made the statement, you have to prove it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



We know? how do we know this? Has anyone ever heard him speak? Have they testified to it in a court of law?



> Once again, if we had taken out Goebbels in Nazi Germany during WWII, we would be merely killing an enemy leader in time of war.  The fact that al-Awlaki was nominally an Aemrican doesn't change what he was at the root of it all:  a leader of the enemy in time of war



Then the Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to you. An American citizen was killed by the government  with mallious. You see thats the difference between me and most who say they will defend the constitution. I mean no matter who the American is and what they have done. They have due process and the Constitution on their side no matter what they have done. If it's wrong to thinnk that then the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper and doesn't mean a damn thing.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


For crying out loud... Mr. Pott, meet Mr. Kettle.  Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pott?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



We also had actionable intelligence that Iraq had WMD's where you one of those on the Bush beat down wagon whhen no WMD's were found?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





> Now I don't know who it applies to.  Where is the line now



Thats the road we are going down now. I forsee action taken on those that defend the constitution in a few more years. Since the nation did not take a stand against the violation.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...






I suspect that you and I have a different idea of the meaning of "legal proceedings".

Please tell me when he was charged and invited to defend himself against those charges.


Nevermind, that was rhetorical request.  I don't think he was so I don't think you can show it to me.  I will be pleasantly surprised if you can.  But I don't think he was.  





As to your question about George Washington, (a) I would have to dig back through the thread to try to find out which instances you mean, (b) I have little doubt that the circumstances will turn out to be significantly different from the case of Awlaki, and (c) Washington's actions more than 200 years ago would not be justification for violating the Constitution in this century.   Just because we interned Americans of Japanese descent during WWII, that would not be an excuse to do something like that again in the future.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It was not a criminal matter.  We don't try leaders of the enemy any more because they happen to have been born in the United States than we'd try a fuckwad like Goebbels.

We don't look to "convict" the enemy in Courts of law.  We look to defeat them in war.

Our Constitution does not apply to any person who is waging war against us.  Such a person is not covered by the 5th or 6th Amendment.  The reality is much more basic and stark.  The enemy in war has a right to die at our hands.  Period.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, I am the classic party line liberal.
Valerie is a dumbass who makes repeated claims she cannot backup, then says it is someone else's job to disprove.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



There's a difference beteen the classical modern day liberal and the classical liberal. Two totally differant type of liberals.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





Wow.  

You trust a politician who is trying to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with to decide which American citizens are enemies and sentence them to death without charges or trial?

Wow wow wow.




You have totally missed the point of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Ropey (Oct 2, 2011)

Citizens in the act of terrorizing the country in which they are citizens and are doing so from the protection of distance and foreign powers.

Damned Right I Am For Assassinating Them at that distance and protection!

Not in the US. Arrest them then as they should have earlier. They've learned...


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

You asked and here is your demand Intense..

https://occupywallst.org/

Cornel West Encourages the Wall Street Protests to Call for Revolution as the Elite Tremble | Video | TheBlaze.com



> DONT BE SCARED TO SAY REVOLUTION: CORNEL WEST ENCOURAGES THE WALL STREET PROTESTS TO CALL FOR REVOLUTION AS THE ELITE TREMBLE


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...






I have backed up each of my posts, liar.  I can't help it if you aren't smart enough to discern what an individual poster on a message board couldn't possibly PROVE in defense of US Government action at this point.  We shall see how the courts decide, hmm?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



People from both side will make that road to tryanny so much eacier for the government.
It is my opinion that those who defend the Constitution will be the next on the hit list, and we all cheered because to government made us feel safe doing it.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



No.  *You* have totally missed the point of the Constitution.

It is there to limit the authority of government.  It is not now -- and never was -- intended to be a suicide pact.  I know.  I read the Court decision that said so.

The notion that we would be obligated to have the JUDICIAL Branch of government tell us when we may and when we may not attack a leader of the enemy at war with us is so absurd as to require people who "get" the point of the Constitution to sadly shake their heads.

All your "wows" don't change any of that.

The COURTS are limited in the scope of their Constitutional authority.  And deciding the conduct of war, by and large, is not within their purview.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2011)

> Our Constitution does not apply to any person who is waging war against us. Such a person is not covered by the 5th or 6th Amendment. The reality is much more basic and stark. The enemy in war has a right to die at our hands. Period.



You forgot to cite your case law in support  although I can tell you there is none. Consequently this is incorrect.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



See what the courts decide? a slip of certain words interpreted the wrong way the courts can rule just about anyway they choose to. But will it destory due process, yes if it is ruled that this killing was legal.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...






_In an 83-page opinion, Judge John D. Bates said Mr. Awlaki&#8217;s father, the plaintiff, had no standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of his son. He also said decisions about targeted killings in such circumstances were a &#8220;political question&#8221; for executive branch officials to make &#8212; not judges.

Judge Bates acknowledged that the case raised &#8220;stark, and perplexing, questions&#8221; &#8212; including whether the president could &#8220;order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization.&#8221;

But while the &#8220;legal and policy questions posed by this case are controversial and of great public interest,&#8221; he wrote, they would have to be resolved on another day and, probably, outside a courtroom. Judge Bates sits on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.



*Judge Bates rejected the notion that his ruling granted the executive &#8220;unreviewable authority to order the assassination of any American whom he labels an enemy of the state.&#8221;

&#8220;The court only concludes that it lacks capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an &#8216;operational member&#8217; &#8221; of Al Qaeda&#8217;s Yemen branch, &#8220;presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him,&#8221; Judge Bates said.*

Robert Chesney, a University of Texas law professor, said the limits of Judge Bates&#8217; conclusion would be a matter of dispute. He portrayed it as &#8220;a sweeping argument against judicial review of targeted killing decisions.&#8221;

&#8220;The slippery slope is obviously the concern here,&#8221; Mr. Chesney said. &#8220;Judge Bates is at pains not to decide this question for other circumstances. But the question remains, what else besides this fact pattern would enable the government to have the same result?&#8221;

Mr. Jaffer said no decision had been made about an appeal.
_

LiveLeak.com - Judge Won't Quash Al-Awlaki Kill Order


----------



## Ropey (Oct 2, 2011)

I believe that this surgical strike will be found legal as a foreign extremist attack ie. surgical strike.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





It would not be suicide to bring charges against a citizen before you specifically mark him for death. 

The opposite is suicide.  A can of poisonous worms.  A pit of vipers.  He could have been put on a watch list, a wanted list, any kind of list but not a death list without due process.

Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to speech you like.

The fifth amendment obviously doesn't only apply to saints.  

Awlaki did not pose an imminent threat.  He was a propagandist.  There was plenty of time to bring charges against him and get a verdict and a sentence.  If he ever did pose an imminent and active threat then it would have been appropriate to act without filing any more paperwork.  But that was not the case here.

We put a citizen on an assassination list without first charging him and without inviting him to defend himself.  


There's not much better word for that than "Wow".


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...






Yeah and if you are real lucky then YOU can feel justified in exacting _your _version of justice by shooting someone with your ol' Colt 45, eh?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

You know Amelia, I really do understand your argument and concerns about protecting due process for American citizens, which I can certainly appreciate, but ask yourself at what point do you take your head out of your hypothetical ideals and take a common sense approach to the unprecedented reality of the situation?  The man openly admitted his violent intentions and evaded justice to the point of dying on his _own_ terms. 

If anyone has a case against the US Government in this action they are still free to file.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



So you don't accept court rulings on the constitution if they don't agree with your interpretation?


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I am not lying. 
I have asked you repeatedly
 to back up your claims, and each time you responded by saying I was the one who needed to disprove your claims.

Link to whre you provided any proof.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



I don't have a colt 45 but I have several 45 acp's. When there is an eminent threat of death or bodily harm shootings are justified.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> You know Amelia, I really do understand your argument and concerns about protecting due process for American citizens, which I can certainly appreciate, but ask yourself at what point do you take your head out of your hypothetical ideals and take a common sense approach to the unprecedented reality of the situation?  The man openly admitted his violent intentions and evaded justice to the point of dying on his _own_ terms.
> 
> If anyone has a case against the US Government in this action they are still free to file.





This isn't hypothetical ideals.  This wasn't a split second decision.  The administration had years to file charges and hold a trial but chose not to.

They created the unprecedented reality by not going through the motions of seeking a judgment against him.  If this were a time-pressured decision based on the man posing an active threat to the nation that would have been vastly different, but it wasn't.  They had plenty of time.  

Where is the line now?  They can now declare anyone an enemy of the state and condemn that person to death without trial.  There was a clear line before - the man's citizenship giving him protection under the Bill of Rights.  There is no line anymore.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






That's the thing, my dear...  Alwaki was an imminent threat.  I'd like to see someone try to prove otherwise.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

prove to us he was an immenent threat...mind you an immenent threat would mean he would have to be on the battlefield shooting at someone not in the car driving to town..


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


A gang of thugs in action of a crime is eminent threat your eaxample according to the law is not.


----------



## Intense (Oct 2, 2011)

Xchel said:


> You asked and here is your demand Intense..
> 
> https://occupywallst.org/
> 
> ...



I don't find anything about Armed Insurrection. Is that what you are referring to? West, in my book seems like a real Asshole. The type that get People hurt. I've seen allot of people in the past try to hi-jack protest's and movements. Checks and balances, and clear determined focus is needed by Organizers to counter that. 

Anyone Inviting Violence or Insurrection, is worth ignoring, abandoning, and walking away from. If that is what is going on, the one's supporting it are bigger Idiots than I gave them credit for. That said, Anyone Supporting Non-Violent Protest, has a Right to Protest, Whether I agree with them or not. 

Expose the insurrection for the ugly beast it is. Anyone busted for Inciting Riot or Insurrection, or Revolution, should face full force of the Law. Foreign Nationals, should be Expelled as soon as their sentences are done.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Of course you'd like someone else to prove otherwise, since you have no intention of proving anything yourself.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal

Attorney Jim Gronquist calls the targeted airstrike a violation of both national and international law.

He says, We have become what the terrorists were."

The former ACLU attorney says regardless of affiliation or deed Awlaki & Khan were entitled to due process, We're not doing anything differently than killing people off without giving them fair trial."
Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal | Charlotte News | Weather | Carolina Panthers | Bobcats | FOX Charlotte | Local News


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal
> 
> Attorney Jim Gronquist calls the targeted airstrike a violation of both national and international law.
> 
> ...


Oh whatever!   

Proof positive you can find someone to say anything you need to 'prove' your point.  The fact he's a lawyer means about as much as chicken shit on a pump handle.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

*The Justification: How does the U.S. government have the right to target for killing a U.S. citizen?

Some of his career lowlights, according to the U.S. government, include the following operations:

* The U.S . government claims that Awlaki has tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction  specifically poisons such as cyanide and ricin  for use in attacking Westerners.

* Awlaki specifically directed Umar Faruq Abdulmutallab in December 2009 to detonate the underwear bomb on board a Christmas Day Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. The government said that Awlaki told Abdulmutallab to detonate the bomb while over U.S. airspace so as to maximize casualties.

* In October 2010, AQAP attempted to explode two U.S. cargo planes by detonating explosives hidden in ink cartridges mailed to synagogues in Chicago. The U.S. government said that Awlaki directly supervised this failed terrorist plot.

* In 2010, Awlaki communicated with Rajib Karim, then a British airlines worker, seeking a way to get a bomb aboard a plane at Heathrow Airport. Karim was convicted in March 2011 in a British court on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The U.S. government also said Awlaki incited terrorism:

* In a May 2010 interview with Al Qaeda Media, Awlaki said he supported operations such as the failed Christmas Day bombing even though they target  innocent civilians.

With regard to the issue of civilians, this term has become prevalent these days, but I prefer to use the terms employed by our jurisprudents. They classify people as either combatants or noncombatants, he said. My message to the Muslims in general, and to those in the Arabian Peninsula in particular, is that we should participate in this jihad against America.

Awlaki said attacks against U.S .service members, such as those shot by Lt. Nidal Hasan, were perfectly valid: How can we possibly oppose an operation like Nidal Hasans? He killed American soldiers on their way to Afghanistan and Iraq. Who could possibly oppose this?

* The U.S. government blames Awlaki for inspiring terrorist attacks against the U.S., including Fort Hood shooter Hasan  who emailed with him, having attended some of Awlakis sermons in Virginia. Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad claimed to have been inspired by Awlaki.

* In March 2010, Awlaki said in an audio message that America is evil and called for violence against the U.S. With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim, he said.

* Awlaki wrote several articles for INSPIRE  magazine, published by AQAP, to justify terrorist attacks.

The U.S. government also notes that in January a Yemeni court sentenced Awlaki in absentia to ten years in prison for forming an armed gang to target foreigners and law enforcement personnel.*

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal
> ...



I imagine the family members will be talking with the ACLU.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> *The Justification: How does the U.S. government have the right to target for killing a U.S. citizen?
> 
> Some of his career lowlights, according to the U.S. government, include the following operations:
> 
> ...


So the police can now target L.A. gang bangers because they are terrorist. They kill people


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> *The Justification: How does the U.S. government have the right to target for killing a U.S. citizen?
> 
> Some of his career lowlights, according to the U.S. government, include the following operations:
> 
> ...







YEMEN managed to try and convict him in absentia but we could not ... would not ....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > *The Justification: How does the U.S. government have the right to target for killing a U.S. citizen?
> ...



So this post won't be over looked or forgotten I'll quote it again


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Yet another example then of what's wrong with this nation.  You're kid's a traitor and you demand compensation for his death????

disgusting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Their kid is an American citizen no matter what he has done is still protected by the Constitution period.

How abouit those L.A. gang bangers should the police shoot them on sight because an informate gave the police intell of something they may have done? After all they are in the true sense terrorist and they kill people, and we still have that war on drugs thing going on.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...






  So let me know if that happens la la la and then we'll talk...


----------



## Disenchanted61 (Oct 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.


All this without a trial first? Hmmm..........read the constitution and learn how this country is suppose to be run.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game.  It is a WAR over there.  American due process is suspended in a war zone.  I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb.  So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Disenchanted61 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...


Even the Geneva convention doesn't cover terrorists.  So why should US judicial process?  They are enemy combatants abroad, not criminals, unless you want to talk about war crimes.  Even then, they are fair game for assassination as enemy combatants.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...




OH no doesn't work that way. Those gang bangers are standing on the street  minding thier own bussniess but an informat give the police some intell that they were involved in a murder or bank robbry. With what just happen it's gives the police presidence to kill without arresting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Is that the best answer you can give? Surely you can do better.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Yemen is not a warzone.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Disenchanted61 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Oops, wrong again.

According to SCOTUS terrorists are criminals.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Nor is Pakistan.  But we still keep killing terrorists there too.  KNOWN terrorists.  Admitted terrorists.  You've obviously mistaken me as someone who gives a fuck about splitting hairs over the imagined rights of our enemies and traitors.

Nixon had to bomb in cambodia to stop the Viet Cong from bringing supplies to their troops in country.  Why do you expect terrorists to respect the rules of war when they violate almost every one of them to begin with?  They are not entitled to, nor should receive any civilized protections that civilized nations give each other in war.  

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight.  You're not going to change my mind on this one.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Great post. Incoming.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...











bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





*So the police can now target L.A. gang bangers because they are terrorist. They kill people
*





OK then my answer is no, no they can't.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes...they can't...


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Is LA officially a war zone and are gangbangers recognized as REAL terrorists?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Xchel (Oct 2, 2011)

I dunno that your sources saying no is right...ever seen the MS 13 or Cribs and Bloods in action? I would say one could make a pretty good argument that they are indeed terrorists...oh and what about the cartel? member of it..no need for trial we just send a drone in to take you out.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 2, 2011)

Have we really become so destroyed that we can't tell anymore who the enemies are?  Seriously?  Is that how bad off we are now?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 2, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Have we really become so destroyed that we can't tell anymore who the enemies are?  Seriously?  Is that how bad off we are now?


No, we haven't. Enemies are people that want to kill Americans.

Sucks to be you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


You keep saying that but we keep finding enemy combatants there.  So I guess what you say doesn't make it so.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


LOL... then I guess we won't be having Predator Drone strikes on gang convoys or hangouts in Compton any time soon then, will we?  Besides, what's the rule for the military acting inside the borders of the United States proper?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Why not they are terrorist and they kill people.
Brown and Delgadillo File Lawsuit Seeking Injunction that Creates 1.4 Square-Mile Gang-Free Zone Around L.A. School

Los Angeles -- Fighting to protect the rights of students who have been "indiscriminately terrorized" by gang violence, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo today announced that they have filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction that creates a 1.4 square-mile gang-free zone around Fremont High School in Los Angeles.

Press Release | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General


What about Mexican gangs?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stlEMIzN9RA]Racist Latino gang targeting Black people - YouTube[/ame]

According to obama they should all be shot on sight. because they are terrorist.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





> According to obama they should all be shot on sight. because they are terrorist.


Link please?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


If obama wasn't wanting terrorist killed on sight he never would have a hit list or send in drones to do the job. gang members are terrorist they terrorize people. So they do not deserve any rights according to the action of obama

You can't have it both ways, but being you're not American citizen you would never understand what due process is.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Sooo...what you are saying in more words than you needed to use is "Actually, I have nothing".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Why have a list is yoiu aren't going to use it? Why use drones unless it's not your intent to kill?


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wait right there big boy.
You said


> According to obama they should all be shot on sight. because they are terrorist


I asked you to provide a link justifying that claim.
Now you're saying that because the CIA has a Kill Or Capture list and uses drones then Obama must want to kill LA gang members?

Your leaps of logic are able to clear tall buildings in a single bound.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


According to his action of having a hit list and using drones new zealander. You really haven't a clue.

Does that 3rd world country of New zealand have due process?


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



No one is going to change your mind on anything, that much is clear.
Comparing killing a terrorist in Pakistan to killing an american accused of terrorism in Yemen is apples to oranges. 
The 5th ammendment applies to one and not the other.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Posse comitatus? Sorry, your boy BushII disabled that. Try again.

The Myth of Posse Comitatus


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Nope.

Properly understood, the 5th Amendment applies to neither.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



No, that is what you are saying.

What he is saying is true and that is the whole point of this thread.

If it is O.K. for the president to order the death of an american, without due process in Yemen, than it is O.K. here as well. There is no difference.


----------



## Dune (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



School me bigboy.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



There is, of course, a huge difference.

If the American is accused or strongly suspected of mere criminality, he cannot properly be ordered to be killed under ANY circumstances.

But, when the American is engaging in efforts to assist our enemy in time of war, and he is not here to capture, and we have no particular ability to go and "arrest" him for any theoretical "crime" over in Yemen, the President MAY permissibly order the enemy leader to be taken out in Yemen.  

Pretending otherwise avails you no bonus points.   We arrest people suspected of criminal acts.  We do  not arrest our enemies in time of war.  We target them and very frequently seek to kill them (which seems only fitting since these particular enemies are targeting Americans for death without regard to status as warriors or civilians).


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Why?  Is your mind even open to the notion that you could be wrong?


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It's interesting to me that you are prepared to shoot a couple of cops dead when your life isn't in clear and present danger and without due process.
Yet you object to this action because there was no 'due process'.

As an aside, I said earlier that I agree that, technically, the killing was probably illegal but I still think - based on what I've read of this guy - it was a good result.
He clearly had no problem carrying out indiscriminate killings (as opposed to the targetted killing on him) so, personally, I would be prepared to accept that it was pragmatic and justified.
Terrorists rely on their targets not being as ruthless as they are.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:



> No person shall be held to *answer* for a capital, or otherwise infamous *crime*, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same* offence* to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any* criminal case* to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without *due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.



As you MIGHT be able to discern from the focus of the words of the Amendment itself, the concern is with the right of PEOPLE (not just citizens, by the way) relative to CRIME and LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.  

To help frame the discussion just a LITTLE bit more, let me ask you:  do you imagine that enemy soldiers on a foreign battlefield might have some hitherto unknown "right" to seek a prior ruling from an American Court of LAW?  The famous "WRIT of HEY!  DON'T SHOOT ME!"


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

Dune said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Again, I agree with you principle.

On the other hand, taking it purely pragmatically, is it right that an American can effectively renounce his citizenship by indiscriminantly targetting his own countrymen and then be able to hide behind the constitution?


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 2, 2011)

"There isn't anything wrong with a little shooting, as long as all the right people get shot."...Dirty Harry.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




No it is not precedence for police to arbitraily shoot a gang-banger because: (A) the police are not in the military, and (b) the police are not covered under the "Authorization to use Military Force" issued by the United States Congress under the War Powers Act.

The Congress on the other hand has authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who may be harboring or may attempt future such attacks.


Something consistent with both the War Powers Act and consistent with the suppression of insurrections (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8).


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



gangs are terrorist, but nice to know your view on the Constitution, and due process.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You only believe in due process when it suits you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Do you have a link to where he denounced his citizenship?


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



I used a qualifier...can you spot it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



And naturally a sheep hearder like you would be wrong. Being a non American  and all.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Did he or did he not renounce his citizenship?


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No that's right, if I was an American I might be busy spending my day planning to blow up things full of other Americans.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hell liability anyone can be classified anything, but  that doesn't take away their American citizenship.


----------



## idb (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you couldn't spot it?
It's right there.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Not my view***, it's the view of the United States Congress that authorized military action against terrorists.


*** Not that I disagree with killing terrorists hiding in a country where they cannot be arrested and extradited to the United States.  If they are an American citizen and want due process I'm more then happy to give it to them, all you have to do turn yourself in at any United States Embassy.  Something this enemy combatant had years of time to do.



>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



You been watchen those hollywood gangbanger movies again I see.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



ONE MORE TIME
No president has the authority to supersede the Constitution by depriving an American citizen due process, like obama has done is a violation of constitution. No president has the authority to take out an American citizen. I really don't care what Congress did or does they have went over their constitutional authority.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

*
Having raised these poignant questions, having teased the litigants and the rest of us, Judge Bates then stoically failed to answer them. He kicked the case out on jurisdictional grounds -- the matter was a non-justiciable "political question" the courts had no business answering, he said -- much in the same way that lower federal court judges in 2002 and 2003 kicked around the Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi cases before the Supreme Court intervened. 


Judge Bates' ruling was a step backwards from the feisty and fair judicial review in terror law cases that began in 2004. He focused more on what al-Awlaki hadn't done than on what the feds had done and were clearly planning to do. 

He ruled that al-Awlaki (or his family) couldn't ask the federal courts for protection from a deadly drone strike unless he surrendered himself to authorities first. Judge Bates wrote:


The Court's conclusion that Anwar Al-Aulaqi can access the U.S. judicial system by presenting himself in a peaceful manner implies no judgment as to Anwar Al-Aulaqi's status as a potential terrorist. All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade U.S. law enforcement authorities. Anwar Al-Aulaqi is thus faced with the same choice presented to all U.S. citizens.*


Where Is the Judicial Branch on Targeted Killings? - Andrew Cohen - National - The Atlantic


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Sorry, but repeating your claim as though it was an established fact (which it isn't) doesn't convert your claim into anything substantial.

The President did not supersede the Constitution.  He did not deprive al-Awlaki of "due process."   There is no basis for you claim that the President lacks the Constitutional (and statutory) authority to order the killing of an enemy combatant in time of war regardless of his U.S. citizenship.  And that you don't care what Congress did is probably one of the reasons you keep repeating your unproved contentions.  

You cannot support your claim regarding what the Constitution commands on this topic except, apparently, by reiterating your belief again and again.   And that fails to substantiate anything beyond the fact that you have a firm belief.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:
> ...



You have yet to support YOUR contention that the fact of his American citizenship somehow differentiates al-Awlaki from any other enemy combatant in time of war.

Yes.  By birth, he was technically an American citizen.  But, no: that factoid provides no support for your contention that he was denied any Constitutional right under these  circumstances.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




ONE MORE TIME.

The Congress has the authority under Article I Section 8 of the United States constitution to authorize the use of the military to suppress insurrection and to deal with enemy combatants.  Doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign nationals.  Insurrection by the way is the act of revolting against civil authority or an established government (which said scum bag has done in assisting with terrorist acts against the United States and in his own video tape released to the public).

During a time of war the Congress issues an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (which they did) authorizing the President to use "all necessary force" (which they did).  Doesn't matter if the Operational Leader of an enemy organization is a Citizen or not, if you make War on the United States the United States will make war on you and you will loose.

Due Process applies to criminal actions handled under law enforcement, acts of war are covered under Constitutionally authorized War Powers Congress grants the President as Commander-in-Chief during time of war.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

Valerie said:


> *
> Having raised these poignant questions, having teased the litigants and the rest of us, Judge Bates then stoically failed to answer them. He kicked the case out on jurisdictional grounds -- the matter was a non-justiciable "political question" the courts had no business answering, he said -- much in the same way that lower federal court judges in 2002 and 2003 kicked around the Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi cases before the Supreme Court intervened.
> 
> 
> ...



Attorney Jim Gronquist calls the targeted airstrike a violation of both national and international law.

He says, We have become what the terrorists were."

The former ACLU attorney says regardless of affiliation or deed Awlaki & Khan were entitled to due process, We're not doing anything differently than killing people off without giving them fair trial."
Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal | Charlotte News | Weather | Carolina Panthers | Bobcats | FOX Charlotte | Local News

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_7W0U_BuVU]Ron Paul to Obama: Don&#39;t Assassinate American Citizens! - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRexSyuQ7w]Ron Paul Attacks Institutionalized Assassination of US Citizens - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3xf56nWU0E]Glenn Beck Judge Napolitano on Anwar Al Awlaki assassination and Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

_What's to prevent a president from simply declaring Americans he doesn't like for whatever reason "enemy combatants" and having them murdered? The same thing that prevents him from launching nuclear weapons, launching military attacks, and otherwise abusing the incredible power that comes with that office: the system, such as it is.

First, and perhaps most importantly, the road to the Oval Office goes through the American people. The grueling two-year campaign cycle serves as a powerful vetting tool, weeding out candidates without the character, judgment, and temperament to sit in the big chair. It's not a perfect safeguard, of course, and there's room to quibble over the quality of a few who made it through.

Second, we have a system of checks and balances. Congress has the power to force its way into the decision-making process in cases like this one, where action is planned over months and even years. In the Awlaki case in particular, Capitol Hill has had plenty of time to insist that the Obama administration lay out its case for action. Either they've done that (behind closed doors in the appropriate national security committees) and been satisfied or they've abrogated their responsibility. Further, lacking such advance warning, Congress can certainly exercise its oversight powers after the fact, calling the administration on to the carpet. Its members have enormous power in this regard, up to and including the ability to impeach the president.

Additionally, the courts also have a significant role to play in safeguarding the Constitution. While they've historically been deferential to elected policy-makers on matters of national security policy, they have, as seen in Hamden, Boumediene, and several other cases, been willing to limit their prerogatives, even when applied to unsympathetic defendants, in order to defend larger principles.

Ultimately, there's far less reason to be concerned about the prospect of rogue presidents ordering Americans killed willy-nilly than that Americans will stop questioning actions taken by their leaders in the name of national security. _

The Thorniest Question: When Can a President Order an American Killed? - James Joyner - Politics - The Atlantic


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




You forgot to bold "criminal case" in that clause, there is no requirement to give Due Process to enemy combatants when conducting a war no matter what their citizenship is.

You can tout the 5th all you like, but it applies to criminal proceedings and conduct of the war by the United States Military is not a law enforcement activity.



>>>>


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Bologna.

Of course the Constitution is about citizens.  Not generic people around the world.  Citizens.  Just because they didn't use the word "citizen" doesn't mean they were talking about noncitizens.  That would be ridiculous.  

It's about "We the People of the United States".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So none of it was a crime? no terrorist acts are criminal? So the president can with a stroke of a PEN  DEEM A PERSON A TERRORIST USING THE WAR POWER ACT. Without any trial. Maybe next wek you will be on obama's terrorist hit list.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





Regardless of the ranting about the republican congressional majority, radical democrats are really in charge of American domestic and foreign policy. As long as we have a radical leftie in the white house and a democrat majority in the senate it seems that the liberal establishment is comfortable with the concept that the CIA and the president should be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of US citizens who are deemed to have committed "henious crimes". It might sound like a bad plot for a si-fi movie but it looks like truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Perhaps we need to put sentence diagramming back in schools.  People are having way too difficult of a time parsing the fifth amendment.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Perhaps we need to put sentence diagramming back in schools.  People are having way too difficult of a time parsing the fifth amendment.


that would take too much time away from self esteem building.

"I'm a loser with no skills or future and I suck, but that's okay.  I am a good person even though this is true."

It's called the Franken Method.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 2, 2011)

There are a ton of reasons for killing this guy and they are all reasonable and they are all good. Now it seems popular opinion and the concerns of the CIA and the death warrant signed by the president are sufficient to authorize the execution of a US citizen without a trial. The media is satisfied that justice has been served and that's all it takes.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:
> ...




You are wrong.  Lots of people are wrong on that topic.  An alien here in America has a right to trial by jury and for a felony, etc., he has a right to be indicted by a Grand Jury.  Yet an alien here is not a citizen.  

Surely SOME of you must, by now, start to glean that at least SOME of the rights accorded to the People under our Constitution apply to PEOPLE not just to CITIZENS.    

So your formulation starts off on the wrong track.  You can call it bologna or Oscar Mayer, but that just makes you all the more wrong.

NOW then, once we understand that SOME rights belong to JUST citizens (e.g., voting) but SOME rights belong to "persons" (i.e., not just to citizens), then the next thing some of YOU must start to come to grips with is that NOT ALL PHRASES used within the Constitution apply to all people at all times.

For example, by its very terms, the FIFTH Amendment applies to considerations of due process within the context of criminal law, for the most part.  You can try to deny that obvious fact, but you cannot succeed since -- when you deny it -- you start off with a false premise.

I'm sorry you have YET to learn the truth of this matter.  But the Constitution in MANY regards applies to all people who happen to be here (our right to a jury trial doesn't extend to citizens, either, outside of OUR sovereign reach).   And it applies only to the extent it was intended to apply.  So, for example, if you are charged with a crime here, regardless of whether you are a citizen or an alien, you ARE equally ENTITLED to a fair trial, a jury, in some cases to a Grand Jury, to a lawyer, and if you can't afford one, to have one appointed to you.   The procedural rules are also CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed to be the same for you as for anybody else in a similar bind, regardless of your citizenship status.

But it ONLY applies where it was intended to apply.  So if you are an enemy of our Republic in time of War, you have no right to "due process."  

The Constitution was not drafted by simpletons.  They (unlike you in this regard) knew what they were doing.  And the _claim_ that the Constitutional right to due process applies to enemy combatants over in Yemen confuses a Constitutional right applicable to a criminal proceeding with some unimaginable "right" of overarching planetary scope  in non criminal matters.

You are not merely wrong; you couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...






Whether it applies to noncitizens is open to interpretation. I grant that the courts have been very generous in making the call to apply it to noncitizens.  

But it is not - or should not be - open to interpretation as to whether the constitution applies to citizens.


----------



## Liability (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



It is far from a useful insight to declare that "the Constitution applies to citizens."  Of course it does.  That's never been debated.

What the Constitution does or does not command is what has been debated.

YOU (and several others) have claimed that the Constitution prohibits the military order of the President to kill an enemy combatant if that enemy combatant happens to be (by accident of birth) nominally an U.S. citizen.  

But you are wrong.  The Constitution provides no such prohibition.

You (and others) repeatedly cite to the Fifth Amendment as "support" for your proposition;  but you adamantly REFUSE to recognize that the Fifth Amendment addresses the rights of people in the context of (for the most part) CRIMINAL proceedings.  

OF COURSE a citizen is entitled to *due process* when threatened by the government with loss of life or liberty -- IN THE CONTEXT of a CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  But that is NOT the same thing as saying that an enemy combatant (who happens to be a citizen) is entitled to "due process" in Yemen from being struck down in time of war.

The entire concept of "due process" simply and flatly does NOT PERTAIN to such matters.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 2, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...





In all this parsing I can't seem to find where the meaning of "due process of law" requires formal federal indictment of unlawful enemy combatants in a time of war who are threatening their countrymen from a remote hiding place across the world.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




And maybe this Christmas when you fly out to see relatives you will arrive safely instead of having your plane exploded in mid-air or highjacked and flown into skyscraper.

See I can make silly "what ifs" also.


Your appeal to emotion characterizations are just that, trying to jerk a tear in support of a terrorist scum bag because it's the fun "anti-government" of the day.


The fact remains that Congress authorized the use of force in protecting this country and Obama (as much as I dislike the current President) exercised that Constitutional authorized force through military action in a foreign land.


>>>>


----------



## Amelia (Oct 2, 2011)

The steadfast claims that Awlaki was not owed due process because his citizenship didn't matter since his acts were in the realm of war not crime might be compelling if Obama and/or his spokespeople had made a credible case for that.

But if Obama actually did have a credible case to make, then he needs to fire Jay Carney fast.

Pathetic answers to Jake Tapper:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo]Jake Tapper vs. Jay Carney on President Killing U.S. Citizens. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You're full of shit and you know it. for the last 10 years the government has called terrorist acts a crime.

Tyranny no matter what it's used for is still tyranny. Why are you so eager for obama to start taking the action of a dictator? Do you have some status with the government? Have you been promised some kind authority in a puppet status?
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD
Question 



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?




Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696
and


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



There's every difference in the world. And if it ever happened all hell would break loose.

Try to quit being such an idiot.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> YOU (and several others) have claimed that the Constitution prohibits the military order of the President to kill an enemy combatant if that enemy combatant *happens to be (by accident of birth) nominally an U.S. citizen.*



You keep making this rather pointless point. He was a citizen, that is undisputed. It wouldn't matter if he were a direct descendant of George and Martha Washington. He'd still be a legitimate military target given his actions.

Other than that your arguments are spot on.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



a terrorist is a terrorist you can't have it both ways. Anyone or group who terrorizes a person or group are terrorist, L.A. gangbangers are terrorist and obama just made it easier to kill these groups on sight using the war on drugs as the cause.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




And if over the years Al-Awlaki had (a) returned to the United States or (b) peacefully presented himself at a United States Embassy for detention and arrest he would have been returned to the States and been able to avail himself to judicial due process.

He didn't he decided to stay hidden in a country without the possibility of arrest and extradition and to continue in his leadership position of an organization responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans.

He had an opportunity for Judicial Due Process and declined it.



>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Does n ot change a thing he still was protected by the fifth amendment and due process. The superme court disagrees with you and obama.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 3, 2011)

World Watcher, he did return to the US during the years..and we released him.


----------



## Paulie (Oct 3, 2011)

I'm a hard core Ron Paul supporter, have been for years.  My view on this is that if an American citizen takes up arms against the US in loyalty to another country, then that citizen should be stripped of citizenship and considered a foreign combatant.

But I would need to see comprehensive evidence against the person to prove that they have in fact pledged loyalty to another country militarily.  I'm not just going to listen to whoever is president send a "memo" about it that the MSM decides to take and run with and cram down our throats every day until we're conditioned to accept it.

Just because someone goes around and plots different attacks in this country, doesn't mean they've given loyalty to another country and taken up arms against the US.  This is where the difference would lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Paulie said:


> I'm a hard core Ron Paul supporter, have been for years.  My view on this is that if an American citizen takes up arms against the US in loyalty to another country, then that citizen should be stripped of citizenship and considered a foreign combatant.
> 
> But I would need to see comprehensive evidence against the person to prove that they have in fact pledged loyalty to another country militarily.  I'm not just going to listen to whoever is president send a "memo" about it that the MSM decides to take and run with and cram down our throats every day until we're conditioned to accept it.
> 
> Just because someone goes around and plots different attacks in this country, doesn't mean they've given loyalty to another country and taken up arms against the US.  This is where the difference would lie.



The superme court disagrees with your  opinion. Never mindI reread what you wrote I retract my statement because of the last part of your post.


----------



## Paulie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a hard core Ron Paul supporter, have been for years.  My view on this is that if an American citizen takes up arms against the US in loyalty to another country, then that citizen should be stripped of citizenship and considered a foreign combatant.
> ...



I've never been one to accept just anything the supreme court decides, either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Paulie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



I agree if its rulings and opinions are contrary to what the Constitution dictates


----------



## Paulie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Which has happened too many times.


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would like very much to be wrong on this.
So far, nothing I have read or seen indicates that to be the case, 
including your post.
Care to extrapolate?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Xchel said:


> World Watcher, he did return to the US during the years..and we released him.




My understanding is that he returned to Yemen in 2004 and has not returned to the United States since.  Prior to 2004 there is evidence that he acted as a spiritual advisor the the highjackers of 9/11 but there was no evidence to link him directly to the slaughter of American citizens.  Starting sometime in 2009 (IIRC) he was promoted and became more involved with the operations and planning for terrorist attacks.


If I'm pulled over for speeding in 2003 and rob a bank in 2009, it's kind of hard to arrest and charge me in 2003 for actions I had not committed yet.


>>>>


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



What war are we in?
Do you mean perchance the "War on Terror"?
When did congress declare this a war, and specificaly against whom?
Certainly no county other than Saudi Arabia could be tasked with responsibility for the events of 9-11.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wasn't there a declaration of war on drugs made at one time?


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...







The difference is the due process of war.



_
*A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."*_

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Thanks, but I've decided that it is pointless to argue with these morons. The difference has been explained to them repeatedly and they just stick their fingers in their ears.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



HAMDI v. RUMSFELD
Question 



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?


Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
 Legal provision: Due Process

Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8) requires Congress to declare war, as opposed to the political and rhetorical use of the word "war", which they did with the War on Terror on September 18th 2001 authorizing the President to use "all necessary" military force.

You claim to be standing for the constitution but yet keep ignoring that minor Constitutional requirement for long term military action.



>>>>


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...





Went through this already in another thread... He was not a DETAINEE.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



I have support from the Superme court ruling of 2003 so I am not alone and you have?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Congress issued and "Authorization for Use of Military Force" on September 18, 2001 and has chosen not to rescind that authorization in the last 10-years.


You appear to be of the mindset from 70, 100, 200 years ago in that wars are fought between Nation States with defined lines of battle that you can point to on a map and say - "See, here is the battle field."  This war is against a non-Nation State organization that declared war against the United States by slaughtering literally thousands of innocent civilians.  If you are unwilling, or unable, to adapt to that paradigm - well I'm sorry for that.



>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



however he was deemed an enemy combatant.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




1.  The scumbag was not captured, nor did he voluntarily return to the United States, and so he was never in control of either military or law enforcement authorities.

2.  The fact that the scumbag is dead.



>>>>


----------



## thetor (Oct 3, 2011)

What about all the Terror and murder the US has perpetrated on the INNOCENT??????????











G.T. said:


> If they've become a foreign militant and we're fighting a war on terror and the foreign militants said person joined was against us in the war on terror, than obviously yes.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 3, 2011)

Sallow said:


> I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.



So an arrest warrant is the same as a contract for a hit?

Maybe we should just hunt down all those people with arrest warrants for traffic tickets too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Damn dude you don't leave your citizenship when you leave the states it goes with you and all the rights you are entitled too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.
> ...



I like my opinion better L.A. gangbanggers are terrorist and following the hit list of obama all terrorist should be killed on sight. Welcome to the police state usa


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Ravi, thanks for proving you have nothing.
If you had ANYTHING AT ALL, you could have a typed a few sentences.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...






It is a legitimate concern to protect due process for American citizens but people should really go back and reread Liabilities' excellent legal explanations of the differences here.

Some people will never be convinced probably because they are just predisposed to hating on the USA...  As I said, some would sooner believe the US would systematically kill Americans than a Jihadist who SAID he intended to kill Americans...


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Those who would choose security over liberty deserve neither.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...





Wanna cracker...?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...




Those who lead organizations that declare war on the United States and slaughter thousands of innocent civilian deserve neither also.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...




Actually I think **part** of the problem is that the TV generation has no real concept of what tactical operations are like in the real world.  They've grown up with TV where everything is neatly wrapped up in 44-minutes, the good guys always hit what they shoot at, and the bad guys can spray thousands or rounds in the air and they always miss the good guys.


>>>>


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...






Indeed he was...  And....................???






Big Fitz said:


> If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game.  It is a WAR over there.  American due process is suspended in a war zone.  I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb.  So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.






Big Fitz said:


> Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight.  You're not going to change my mind on this one.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...












A Maverick Missile does tend to solve a lot of legal conundrums.




>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



you need to reread those case. The justices at a 6 -3  that an American citizen still has constitutional; rights and due process even though they were deemed enemy combatants.
OH and Hamdi's detention wasn't in the united states it was at gitmo. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






Yawn, IF Awlaki had ever actually _been_ detained, he would have retained those _same _rights...


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





> Quote: Originally Posted by *Big Fitz*
> 
> 
> _If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the  theater of battle, then of course they're fair game.  It is a WAR over  there.  American due process is suspended in a war zone.  I never  thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb.  So  needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one._
> ...


Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike.  If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Makes no difference if they'er held or not your constitutional rights are not striped away just because the president deems youan enemy combant. obama won't always be the fuhr one day someone like me will be incharge and we will see how you constitution haters will like your rights taken away just because we view you as enemy combatants.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...








>>>>


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...







I haven't tried to equivocate anything.  Those are your own words.


----------



## Fedupp (Oct 3, 2011)

I couldn't care less where they killed the son-of-a-bitch! or where he came from or what country! Hes a traitor and a terrorist! And a coward! He used our rights and constitution and then wants to bitch about the very country that educated him out of the Freaking cave he was born in!!!! God speed you SOB!!!!


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





A)  Why would he turn himself over?  Was there a warrant for his arrest?  He should just walk to the embassy and say, "Hey, I hear some of you are mad at me and might one day want to charge me with something, so here I am ... is there anything you want to charge me with?"

B) Even if there was a warrant, him not turning himself over does not mean we get to skip ahead to a death sentence just because he didn't turn himself over.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Then what point are you attempting to make?  Hmmmm?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





That your use of that Ben Franklin quote appears quite trite in the context of this discussion and especially in contrast with your other previous comments...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If I was a terrorist that in a leadership position slaughtering thousands of American Citizens, I wouldn't turn myself in either.




Amelia said:


> B) Even if there was a warrant, him not turning himself over does not mean we get to skip ahead to a death sentence just because he didn't turn himself over.




As an enemy combatant leading an organization where Congress specifically authorized the use of military force to prevent future acts of terrorist, ya we can skip ahead to prosecute terminal actions against individuals in a position of authority hiding in a foreign country - yep we can skip ahead to death to combat operations.


>>>>


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


I didn't use a corrupted Ben Franklin quote, Dune did and you used a parrot picture to respond.  I pointed out he was a very astute man.  I don't get your response OR to then quote me back and whistle about it.  Obviously I'm not comprehending the context of your conversation with.... whom?

The full quote is actually:



> People willing to trade their *freedom* for temporary *security*  deserve neither and will lose both



Neither is the issue here.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





Justice department memos are often attempts to tell the president what he wants to hear. 

A justice memo said waterboarding was okay too.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





Your posting an affirmative response to the quote is in essence _using_ the quote.  I realize it was Dune who I was poking fun at for parroting that trite quote in this context.


The confusing part is your need to point out that Ben Franklin was a wise man at that point...?  Anyway, looks like we agree, so just a misunderstanding I guess...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





> Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?


Salvadoran gangs akin to terrorists, FBI agent says

Salvadoran gangs akin to terrorists, FBI agent says - latimes.com

"We have domestic terrorists right here," said California Attorney General Jerry Brown at a recent gang summit in L.A. County. "Gangs are like a disease, like a cancer in a community. We have to do more."
for Christians & Messianic Jews - Black, Hispanic gangs kill each other over turf

In the Los Angeles area, similar legislation has already been approved, and plans are in place for police to issue an eviction notice to gangs who have already been labeled domestic terrorists by Southern California law enforcement officials, Final Call West Coast correspondent Charlene Muhammad reported. Western Regional Minister Tony Muhammad warned visitors at Muhammads Mosque No. 27 recently that Operation Nutcracker is not to come, but has come through federal legislation, without ample prior warning from any Blacks in Congress.
Deadly silence covers passing of federal gang bill

Watch this first
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0SyrgAQM7g]KEVIN JAMES - CONVICTED LA TERRORIST TALKS - YouTube[/ame]

This the completion of the first video
KEVIN JAMES - AN AMERICAN TERRORIST - YouTube


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

Power corrupts.  

It corrupted Obama.  He is so far away from the person he campaigned as, from the person he was or pretended to be while in the Senate.   

Obama would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had put an American citizen on a death list without dotting the constitutional i's and crossing the constitutional t's. 




In the Senate, I thought he had strong potential as a future president, once he earned his stripes.  He seemed to feel the same way as I did and for awhile said he wouldn't run when people asked him about 2008. But he let people recruit him and make him believe that he could and should be president sooner rather than later.  Obviously they were correct that he could.  Just as obviously they were incorrect that he should.  His standards were made of tissue paper.  Too much power too fast?  Or his standards were all illusion to begin with?  I don't know why he was so easy to corrupt but he was.


Senator Obama would have said that President Obama violated Awlaki's due process.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Power corrupts.
> 
> It corrupted Obama.  He is so far away from the person he campaigned as, from the person he was or pretended to be while in the Senate.
> 
> ...



obama has never changed he's still the same old lying sack of shit he's always been.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

You two are very amusing. 

Bush authorized killing terrorists many times and I don't recall anyone questioning it once, let alone Obama.

I'm so sorry to see that this dead terrorist will keep you from voting for Obama.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Power corrupts.
> ...





Sometimes he seems to have high ideals.  He seems to believe them.  I think he fools himself.  

Like the time when he said that it would be wrong to vote against Bush's Supreme Court nominations for ideological reasons and agreed that John Roberts was brilliant and qualified.  That was a brave thing for a Democrat to say and I think he said it because he believed it.  I think he was really planning to vote yes for John Roberts.  But then someone whispered in his ear and told him he might be hurting his chances for higher office and so he voted no. 

I think he believes his promises when he makes them ... but time was needed for America to how likely he was to compromise his ideals.  Now time has shown us he is not so good at that.  Too late.

Still I think he really believes in his principles ... in theory ...  when he's sitting in that comfy chair being interviewed by someone who is friendly to him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> You two are very amusing.
> 
> Bush authorized killing terrorists many times and I don't recall anyone questioning it once, let alone Obama.
> 
> I'm so sorry to see that this dead terrorist will keep you from voting for Obama.



Yes Bush authorized killing terrorist but not assinating American citizens. You would be shitting bricks and biting harden steel nails in half if Bush would have given the ok to assinate Americans.

What I will lose sleep most of all is how obama assinated the Constitution and you stood by and watched.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



obama's actions are not based on belief it's based on political motivation.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

_The judge went further in explaining why the challenge to the "targeted killing" program had to go away long before trial. Because it touched upon expert military judgments, he concluded, it was necessarily a "political question" that he was bound to allow the executive branch to answer first. 

Through his lawsuit, Al-Aulaqi's father had asked the federal courts "to limit the circumstances under which the United States may employ lethal force against an individual abroad whom the Executive has determined 'plays an operational role in AQAP planning terrorist attacks against the United States.' " 


This Judge Bates would not do. Why? 


Because, he explained, *the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:*

* "The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "*
_

Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

Germany 1941

BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 3, 2011)

Xchel said:


> WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...*would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial*? Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.



If they we an opertive in foriegn organization that had killed thousands of Americans and was suspected in ongoing attempt to kill more.  Yes I would be okay with that.  By suspected I mean that the CIA had intel that this was the case.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> _The judge went further in explaining why the challenge to the "targeted killing" program had to go away long before trial. Because it touched upon expert military judgments, he concluded, it was necessarily a "political question" that he was bound to allow the executive branch to answer first.
> 
> Through his lawsuit, Al-Aulaqi's father had asked the federal courts "to limit the circumstances under which the United States may employ lethal force against an individual abroad whom the Executive has determined 'plays an operational role in AQAP planning terrorist attacks against the United States.' "
> 
> ...



If the supreme court ruled that the government cannot legally hold Americans for no reason other than being deemed an enemy combatant you most assuredly can't assassinate them either. Killing bears more weight than holding does.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > WW, there was also a time when we considered folks who sympathized with communism as damn near terrorists...*would you have been ok with targeting them for assasination without trial*? Remember those laws? All struck down by the US Supreme Court...it isn't against the law to have controversial speech or even speech against the government..it is against the law to act on those beliefs though...again I want to see at least an indictment before we take someone out with a sniper rifle.
> ...



Didn't the CIA have intell that Iraq had WMD's?


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Germany 1941
> 
> BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"





Your  little joke might be applicable if the U.S. singled out BR for death by name.   Not the same if he just happens to be killed in a military operation because he's in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.  

But even if we did target specific U.S. citizens for death without trial during WWII (which for all I knew we may have) that wouldn't make it constitutional.

In WWII we interned Americans of Japanese descent.  That doesn't mean it would be right to intern Americans whose families have or might possibly have connections to or sympathies with terrorists.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Germany 1941
> 
> BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"



buggereater Ravi you do realize that happen in nazi germany people were killed just because the government said so. thanks for supporting naizism, it's crazy to show your support but by all means do continue.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Germany 1941
> ...






  In this hypothetical_ you_ are the Nazi, silly!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I don't think you comprehended what was said but that is usual for you.
*BuggerReb moves to Germany* and joins the Nazis. *He is surprised to find himself killed* by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"

But anyway it did happen nazi killed people just because the government said so.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






  I understand YOU said her post meant she was supporting Naziism.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


 I think his brain melted.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



I said that how the nazi government worked shes showing support for the same thing here, thats how you and her both are doing it.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

It doesn't really matter. 

Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week.  There will be no accountability.  Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.  

And then people will be asking, why didn't someone do something about it back then, when the precedent was set.

And it will be too late.

It is already probably too late.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> It doesn't really matter.
> 
> Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week.  There will be no accountability.  Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.
> 
> ...



I agree


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Again I have to disagree.
> ...



I don't think you are reading it correctly.  It applies to enemies who are killed when the armed forces are in action in war or in times of public danger.  See when the Consitution was written we had Militias that were not part of a perminant military......


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...



No that was CurveBall and the Bush Administration cherry picking unvetting low level reports.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


What happen was that he was specifically targeted to be killed without due process.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



OH I see Iraq had WMD's.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> It doesn't really matter.
> 
> Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week.  There will be no accountability.  Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.
> 
> ...





Why would it make you feel so much better if the judicial branch had authority over military actions instead of the executive branch...?  Are they not equally corruptible but unequally accountable such that our processes are already properly balanced to provide for certain special circumstances in times of war...?  


*
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "*


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Unlike you, I get the fact that if you are a proven traitor, the penalty is death.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





  Go away, troll!


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



No, that is exactly what is going on here. A steady erosion of freedom for a temporary gain of security, resulting in the eventual loss of both.


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Germany 1941
> 
> BuggerReb moves to Germany and joins the Nazis. He is surprised to find himself killed by Americans and screams as he dies, "You're violating my due process!"



apples and oranges


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Power corrupts.
> ...



And right there is the real nub of your argument.
It has nothing to do with the constitution at all, it's all about Obama.


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No, in this situation, you are the mindless idiot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



It's both he's a lyiong sack of shit. I can say that ans also show obama has a disregard for the constitutional process.


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...




By troll, I assume you mean one who bests you in a debate?
You are the only liberal to EVER call me a troll, idiot.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


As a Kenyan, he's not required to follow the constitution.


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
They certainly don't feel any constraint around peoples rights.
The West has been struggling to deal with this and if everything was done according to due process then I suspect there would have been zero progress in the fight against these bastards.

Because the battle isn't against a state that can be identified and faced, the only thing that could have been done was to retreat to within your own borders and wait for the bad men to come.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




Right.  That's why Rachel Maddow and the ACLU have been expressing their opposition to targeting an American for assassination since Awlaki was first put on that list in early 2010.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...






Now look who's got nothing!   




I've never "debated" with you and I am not a "liberal", troll.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
> They certainly don't feel any constraint around peoples rights.
> The West has been struggling to deal with this and if everything was done according to due process then I suspect there would have been zero progress in the fight against these bastards.
> 
> Because the battle isn't against a state that can be identified and faced, the only thing that could have been done was to retreat to within your own borders and wait for the bad men to come.






We're supposed to be better than the terrorists.  One of the things which supposedly makes us better than them is our Constitution.

We had plenty of time to give Awlaki due process, and if at any time during that period he actually did pose an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country we could have taken him down without violating our principles.


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Does bigrednec speak for them both?
There are plenty of opinions for and against from both sides of the political debate...I was addressing bigrednec only.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 3, 2011)

Dune said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


So let the enemy kill us by misapplication and misunderstanding our own rules.

Until the Maccabees, the Jews wouldn't fight on the Sabbath.  The enemies would then choose those days to attack, and win the day, but the next often was the bad news for them.  Finally, they realized that defending oneself is not a sin, and dealt with their attackers on the Sabbath when they came.

Too Jewish a reference?

Here.  Try Hollywood.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that these terrorists don't play by any rules.
> ...




Amelia,

So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something.  So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?


The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private.  Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.



>>>>


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

To me a very interesting question is, Why didn't the administration indict Awlaki?

They had plenty of time.

Were they more concerned by the precedent which would have been set if they indicted him than by the precedent set by not indicting him?

What was on their mind when they put him on a hit list and kept him there for almost two years without ever indicting him much less getting a conviction against him?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



A non American terrorist does not have the U.S. Constitution An American terrorist does. Let's keep the two seperate.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?


believe it or not, i have not really read too much on the particular case that this could be referencing, but your whole thread question has been nawing at me for a few days.

HERE is my general thoughts...

I don't believe in killing someone who has not killed/murdered...Just as I don't believe in President Bush's Preemptive War...not unless we, as a nation, is in imminent danger of being attacked...and attacked TODAY, not attacked sometime down the road, but in imminent danger of being harmed, if we did not kill this other person or kill this other nation's citizens. 

And I might add, that even if we were in imminent danger, I still expect my government to do all that they can do to stop this from happening *without* killing this other person or without going to war against this other nation. 

I expect my government to capture this person, this USA citizen, and NOT kill him/her....especially if there was nothing that this person was doing at the present moment, to harm us. If you are close enough to assasinate, then you are close enough to capture. Then this citizen should be tried.

So, if this American is in the act of harming us then I have no problem with killing him while in that act, because this could be considered "self defense" on the part of our government.

but if this American person, is not pulling the trigger, then he should be captured alive....he would mean more to us captured, than dead too, imho.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




No, that is not what I am saying.  I am saying that they had plenty of time to indict him and get a conviction.  And they should have sought it.

No more lives were saved by killing him last week without due process than would have been saved by killing him last week with due process.

There would have been nothing wrong with killing him in a normal military maneuver if events on the ground dictated it. But that could have been done without putting him specifically on a kill list.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?
> ...



I agree with you care


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Not need to keep them separate when Constitutional requirements are met such an Congress authorizing the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution which they did under their "Authorization for use of Military Force" issued on September 18, 2001 which authorized the President of the United States to act with "all necessary force" against terrorist organizations.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




What you said was, and I quote "an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country".

There is no need for an indictment during times of war for enemy combatants, whether they be US Citizens or not when they are acting as the head (or operative) an an organization that has declared war on us.



>>>>


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




Yes I said, "such as" and gave one example.  You gave an overgeneralization which amounted to a misrepresentation of my position.  I corrected the overgeneralization. 


And I continue to disagree with your position.   U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution.  It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.


----------



## Xchel (Oct 3, 2011)

Congress can authorize war against another nation, not make hit lists to kill people that are US citizens from


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



If one part of the constitution is no good then non of the Constitution is no good, you can't have it both ways. And the Superme Court already ruled hat even though an American citizen has been deemed a enemy combatant they still have due process of the law.


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...




AHhhh, but you leave out the numerous _top legal scholars_ who do not agree with that.  And they are right there in YOUR article.  How about a little acaemnic honesty for a change.


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Translation:  You don't have a clue what you are talking about!  But then we knew that!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




And yet the Constitution contains the very authorization for Congress to authorize the use of the Military against it's citizen when they are in a state of insurrection (i.e. revolt).  When you are a citizen in a state of insurrection and commit acts of war against the United States, then you are no longer eligible for due process and it's protections which apply protections under criminal prosecution.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



When was martial law envoked? Or the suspension of habeas corpus


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Congress can authorize war against another nation, not make hit lists to kill people that are US citizens from




Article I Section 8 specifically empowers Congress to authorize use of the military in cases of insurrection.  Insurrection does not occur by "another nation", insurrection is revolting against your own government.  Therefore the Constitution authorizes the user of military force against US citizens who are in a state of insurrection.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment.  If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.



> And the Superme Court already ruled hat even though an American citizen has been deemed a enemy combatant they still have due process of the law.




Of course if you are captured by law enforcement and are to be tried in court, then you have due process.  However as an enemy combatant outside the bounds of law enforcement hiding in another country where they can't reach you, then Congress can authorize the use of military force.



Pretty simple really.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Show me in the constitution where martial law must be declared for Congress to exercise it's Article I Section 8 empowerment.


We'll wait.




> Or the suspension of habeas corpus



Habeas corpus is a legal action as part of a judicial process.  If he had been arrested and imprisoned he would have been able to use habeas corpus as a part of a legal pleading.

Since he was killed in a military action ordered National Command Authority upon an specific authorization by Congress for the application of "all force necessary", then habeas corpus does not apply.

All that counts is that the Missile didn't miss.



>>>>


----------



## chikenwing (Oct 3, 2011)

The guy was NOT assassinated ,he was killed on the battle field,as the enemy,it really is that simple.


----------



## chikenwing (Oct 3, 2011)

And no I am against assassinating anyone.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





> There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment.  If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.



What was the charges aginst the American Citizen?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> The guy was NOT assassinated ,he was killed on the battle field,as the enemy,it really is that simple.



When did we invade Yemen?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You don't think congress would put down an insurrection without issuieing Martial law do you?




> Habeas corpus is a legal action as part of a judicial process.  If he had been arrested and imprisoned he would have been able to use habeas corpus as a part of a legal pleading.
> 
> Since he was killed in a military action ordered National Command Authority upon an specific authorization by Congress for the application of "all force necessary", then habeas corpus does not apply.



What were his charges? and when did we invade Yemen?


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You're not at war with Yemen.
But that's where he was carrying out his operations from.
The strike was carried out with their agreement as I understand.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Military actions authorized by Congress do not have "charges" those are for courts of law if the individual turns themselves in or is arrested.

Not the case here, has an enemy combatant he was killed in a foreign land based on intelligence gathered.


>>>>


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

Obama couldn't even be bothered to secure a warrant for Awlaki's arrest.

Straight to kill list.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 3, 2011)

> And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.



Correct. 

The specter of the Executive passing sentence on an American absent due process is repugnant to free men everywhere. And that one is accused of declaring war on the United States or of being a traitor again neither mitigates nor suspends ones right to due process. Indeed, the right is predicated on the fact that without due process, one might be detained  or in this case killed  in error: 



> *[The requirement of due process is not] offset by the circumstances of war or the accusation of treasonous behavior,* for _t is clear that commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection, Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 361 (1983) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted), and at this stage in the Mathews calculus, we consider the interest of the erroneously detained individual. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978)* (Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property)*; see also id., at 266 (noting the importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, and* emphasizing that the right to procedural due process is absolute in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimants substantive assertions).* Indeed, as amicus briefs from media and relief organizations emphasize, the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizens liberty in the absence of sufficient process here is very real._


_

Further, the fact that one may be associated with  voluntarily or not, it makes no difference  a hated organization such as al Qaeda only makes more urgent the adherence to due process: 




			([The Founders] knewthe history of the world told themthe nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued, human foresight could not tell; *and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen*). Because we live in a society in which [m]ere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a persons physical liberty, OConnor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 575 (1975), *ouranalysis is unaltered by the allegations surrounding the particular detainee or the organizations with which he is alleged to have associated.* We reaffirm today the fundamental nature of a citizens right to be free from involuntary confinement by his own government without due process of law, and we weigh the opposing governmental interests against the curtailment of liberty that such confinement entails.
		
Click to expand...



Source for the cited above: 

HAMDI V. RUMSFELD


This does not mean, however, we sit and do nothing, or wait for the terrorists to come kill us. 

Criminal suspects may be aggressively and proactively pursued, arrested, and if they offer resistance, killed. 

But no president, no member of Congress, and no private citizen is above the rule of law._


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Congress did not authorize this obama did. obama was the one who placed him on the hit list so what did obama charge the American citizen with that placed him on the hit list?



> Not the case here, has an enemy combatant he was killed in a foreign land based on intelligence gathered.



Intell? so how well does America's intell work? Have we found any WMD's in Iraq yet?


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

America were just helping out their Yemeni allies.


> Awlaki is being tried in absentia in Yemen for his alleged role in the kidnapping and murder of a French national. On Saturday, Judge Moshen Allwan ordered him "arrested by force, dead or alive" when he failed to appear.
> 
> Read more: Cleric says American 'devils' must die - UPI.com





> A Yemeni judge has issued an order that the US-born Muslim preacher Anwar al-Awlaki has to be caught dead or alive, for alleged links to al-Qaeda and involvement in the killing of foreigners.
> 
> Mohsen Alwan, in a ruling on Saturday, asked prosecutors "to forcibly arrest" al-Awlaki and his relative Othman al-Awlaki whom a court in Sanaa has charged with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."
> 
> ...


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/11/201011613102535305.html


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 3, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_

I posted the Hamdi case before.  They didn't read it then.  What makes you think they will read it now?  LOL._


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So obama invaded another soverign nation? New Zealands next


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
> ...



It seems that make three of us I've been poosting that for three days now.


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Where's the invasion?
I'll get back to you after I check out the 6pm news tonight in case I've missed something.


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

Getting back to the original thread title 


> Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?


Mr Alwaki thought it was a great idea.
He would have voted 'yes'.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Invade

1.(of an armed force or its commander) Enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it
- it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland
- they would invade at dawn


2.Enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, esp. with intrusive effect
- demonstrators invaded the presidential palace


3.(of a parasite or disease) Spread into (an organism or bodily part)


4.(of a person or emotion) *Encroach or intrude on*


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Is English your second language?
Re-read your highlighted section again, or get someone to translate for you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 3, 2011)

> I posted the Hamdi case before. They didn't read it then. What makes you think they will read it now? LOL.



Note the thread views as opposed to the posts, you never know when someone with an open mind might wander into the thread. 

Its also for my own edification, as I read case law I find new to me nuances and subtleties; and I have my opponents to thank, compelling me to dig deeper. My opponents are often my most effective teachers.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What is Encroach or intrude on for 1000 alex
to invade


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

Yet again, I don't disagree that due process would have been preferable.

However, the legal route was tried, and the warrant for his arrest was rescinded just before his eventual detention so that he had to be released - 'due process' simply failed allowing him to carry on causing mayhem.
I think this demonstrates the potential unevenness of the playing field.
Terrorists don't care about due process and human rights and they'll exploit their targets' adherence to these principles.

Eventually I believe that pragmatism needs to take precedence and the US (or any country) needs to take whatever action is necessary to protect its own citizens.


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You've found a translator that has English as a *third* language?
Try again.

The clue is in the bracketed sections.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> Yet again, I don't disagree that due process would have been preferable.
> 
> However, the legal route was tried, and the warrant for his arrest was rescinded just before his eventual detention so that he had to be released - 'due process' simply failed allowing him to carry on causing mayhem.
> I think this demonstrates the potential unevenness of the playing field.
> ...





The warrant for his arrest?  You mean the warrant on the charge of passport fraud?

Due process was not tried for the acts for which he was put on the kill list.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists.

Savvy yet principled.  

We could have been on the lookout for Awlaki and all enemies of the state while at the same time making sure that we observed constitutional protocols.


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 3, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > I posted the Hamdi case before. They didn't read it then. What makes you think they will read it now? LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, good point.  I was so old when I got my JD that I decided not to practice.  But it has still served me well in my current profession.  Now, as sick as I am, the decision not to reinvent myself was a good one.  

There are always discussion boards!  LOL.

On this thread or another, you made the comment something to the effect of 'check your patriotism at the door.'  I would think the MOST patriotic of all would be the ones who want to see our system of justice preserved.  I am always flabberghasted at how few that sometimes turns out to be.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Sure, al Awlaki was a traitor and insurrectionist hiding in another country to maintain himself outside the abiliity of conventional law enforcement agencies of the United States to arrest him.  He could have turned himself in, but he didn't.

So as a terrorist, leader in a terrorist organization, and a citizen in a state of insurrection the Congress the use of "all necessary" which included the use of Military force in a foreign country.  Since the action was not in the United States there was no need to "martial law" to be declared here.




> > Habeas corpus is a legal action as part of a judicial process.  If he had been arrested and imprisoned he would have been able to use habeas corpus as a part of a legal pleading.
> >
> > Since he was killed in a military action ordered National Command Authority upon an specific authorization by Congress for the application of "all force necessary", then habeas corpus does not apply.
> 
> ...




I don't believe criminal charges had been made, miliatary actions in time of war are not based on criminal charges in court.

As far as I know we haven't invaded Yemen, although we probably did violate their air space with a drone and a maverick missile.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Obama couldn't even be bothered to secure a warrant for Awlaki's arrest.
> 
> Straight to kill list.




I believe it was a kill or capture list.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_


Your source is about a citizen fighting against the United States that was captured by Afgan forces opposed to the Taliban and turned over the US Forces.

Different situation then killing an enemy combatant in a military strike who happens to be an US Citizen.


>>>_


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
> ...



in other words obama fucked up so I'll dance around the issue and play fucking word games?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes they did, the September 18, 2001 Congress issued an "Authorization for the use of Military Force" to battle terrorism against the United States and authorized the President to use "all necessary force".



> > Not the case here, has an enemy combatant he was killed in a foreign land based on intelligence gathered.
> 
> 
> 
> Intell? so how well does America's intell work?




As an Intelligence operator specializing in electronic reconnaissance holding a TS/SBI clearance while on active duty in the United States Military I'm still subject to 18 USC §798 "Disclosure of classified information".



> Have we found any WMD's in Iraq yet?




Yes, Chemical Weapons are WMD's and there is evidence that Irag possessed them.  

Check out the Halabja poison gas attack.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
> ...




He was captured by forces that opposed the Taliban and turned over the US forces.  He was not killed which is the situation under discussion.



>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Admitted obama over steped his authority Because no matter what the person did and no matter where they went they are still American citizens and protected by the constitution period.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




You usually do, the issue is the use of military force against enemy combatants.  You keep trying to apply criminal due process when the individual was hiding in a country outside the ability of conventional law enforcement to arrest or detain him.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Not when they are an enemy combatant and Congress declares war and authorizes the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the constitution.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I posted the Hamdi case before. They didn't read it then. What makes you think they will read it now? LOL.
> ...



Ding dong Bigreb calling. I don't care who you are and what you have done if you are an American citizens all rights are reserved and cannot be taken away no matter what some penicel whipping rubber stamping president may say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The superme court disagrees with you


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I was speaking for you because I read your mind. Yes I can do that when it's so obvious. One thing you keep forgetting terrorist are considered criminals


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...











I thought the Great Kreskin was dead.  Glad to know you are still around.




> One thing you keep forgetting terrorist are considered criminals




Not when they're dead.



>>>>


----------



## Paulie (Oct 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...


I'd prefer such a memo not be "secret".

If this citizen's constitutional rights are/were potentially at stake here, I'd like to know the details and the explanations from the administration and anyone who was part of the information dissemination.  I believe it's our business as well, as fellow citizens.  

I'm not apt to just accept the WORD of any administration or its lawyers, no matter what the political affiliation of any of them.  I'm getting a bit tired of all of these extreme measures that are being undertaken by our government where the only justification we're given is "memos" at best, and "sorry, it's a secret" at worst.

Where is the transparency?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 3, 2011)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


There was no secret that this guy was marked as a war target.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 3, 2011)

Sept. 14, 2010:

U.S. eyes terror charges for Yemeni cleric - USATODAY.com



> The Obama administration is considering filing the first criminal charges against radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in case the CIA fails to kill him and he is captured alive in Yemen.





> Shortly after the failed Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner, which officials believe al-Awlaki had a hand in planning, the White House took the unprecedented step of authorizing the CIA to kill or capture him. A decision on criminal charges is expected in the next several weeks, officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations.





> Another option, given al-Awlaki's increasingly violent sermons and his collaboration with al-Qaeda's propaganda efforts, would be charging him with supporting terrorism. But that charge carries only a 15-year prison sentence, leaving the administration open to questions about how the president can authorize the CIA to essentially impose the death penalty for such a crime.





> If the Justice Department decides to charge al-Awlaki, it's likely he would not be indicted. Rather, charges are more likely to take the form of an FBI complaint. That's because an indicted suspect automatically gets the right to an attorney if he is captured, making it harder for authorities to question him.






Lots of stuff packed into that article.  Probably some bits you'd choose as more important than the parts I quoted.   

Foregoing further comment on it for the moment.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...






  I know exactly what I'm talking about as I have read and comprehended in entirety every single article I posted including the view of every legal scholar as well as all of the posts in this thread.  What do you have to offer besides snark?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't really matter.
> ...






I must have missed your reply to this post from earlier....?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



That's ok I covered it.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





   You did not.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 3, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
> ...





Har har.  What makes you think it hasn't been read and addressed already in this thread?  Are you capable of disagreeing without being dishonest...?


It has been previously pointed out that this case relates to procedure for DETAINEES.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Because it hasn't, only your deflections.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Yes I did


----------



## Jos (Oct 4, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7-2CP_o9Jk&feature=player_embedded]The Rule of law Has Been Abolished - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



One size fits all, and forever.


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Congress can authorize war against another nation, not make hit lists to kill people that are US citizens from
> ...



"who are in a state of insurrection" 

Nice try.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Jos said:


> The Rule of law Has Been Abolished - YouTube


This is what I got from the video
"because I said so  now shut the fuck up"


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





You just said insurrection could only occur from inside the county.

Make up your mind.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...



The tea party


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> The guy was NOT assassinated ,he was killed on the battle field,as the enemy,it really is that simple.



No. you have it completely backwards.

Yemen is not a battlefield.

He was targeted by a drone.

He was clearly assassinated.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 4, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...




"Insurrectoin" an attempt to overthrow and established government, al Alwki calling for the destruction of the United States.

Yes, as a United States Citizen, that would be placing one's self in a state of insurrection.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 4, 2011)

Dune said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




No I didn't try reading back through my posts again.  Insurrection is a condition whereby a person is trying to abolish or overthrow their established government.  That is not defined by geographical limitations.  A United States citizen in Memphis, TN can be an insurrectionist if they are trying to overthrow the United States government, as well as a citizen of the United States in Yemen trying to overthrow the United States government.


Pretty easy, insurrection is based on the government you are a citizen of and the government you are revolting against, not your geographical location.


>>>>


----------



## Jos (Oct 4, 2011)

With no Proof presented, only hearsay?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




1.  The Tea Party has not called for the overthrow of the government, the have called for fiscal responsibility from the current government and changes needed to be performed in a Constitutional manner.

2.  To my knowledge the Tea Party hasn't flown airplanes into building slaughtering thousands of American Citizens.

3.  To my knowledge the Tea Party has not encouraged an Army Major to walk into a group of fellow soldiers and slaughter them.

4.  To my knowledge the Tea Party has never been instrumental in putting a bomb in someones underwear in an attempt to blow up an airplane with hundreds onboard.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 4, 2011)

Jos said:


> With no Proof presented, only hearsay?



"Proof" (as in evidence) and "hearsay" applies in a court of law, not to military strikes taken against enemy combatants.


>>>>


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

Jos said:


> With no Proof presented, only hearsay?





Presented to whom...?  



Evidence was presented to a federal court, evidence was presented to congress, evidence was presented to the Department of Justice and it's team of legal experts, evidence was presented to the President of the United States who holds the executive authority to order the US Military to kill unlawful enemy combatants...




_

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "_






*Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.*

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



Yet the tea party has been called terrorist comparing it to tim mcviegh. 



> 1.  The Tea Party has not called for the overthrow of the government, the have called for fiscal responsibility from the current government and changes needed to be performed in a Constitutional manner.



Who's called for the overthrow of the government?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > With no Proof presented, only hearsay?
> ...





And the superme court has also stated that an American citizen still has due process not matter what they have been charged with, oh wait he wasn't ever charged.

BTW how do you like immagration sytem now? should we stop giving out citizenships to every tom dick and harry? Next thing you know we'll have mexicans doing this.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...






That's more and more what it's sounding like.  That it's okay to kill someone just as long as you never charge them.  

If you can't come up with a charge which would merit the death penalty, no problem.  Just kill them outright.  

Once you put them on the hitlist, double down because if you ever bring them in and the charges you come up with don't come close to meriting death, then you'll have some splainin' to do.  So make sure you kill 'em.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...






That's right, keep ignoring the difference between criminal due process and the due process of war...


----------



## geauxtohell (Oct 4, 2011)

Amelia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Why should we charge enemy combatents?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Why should we charge anyone, if an accused child molestor is caught leaving the area of a crying child find the nearest tall tree grab a rope and hang the bastard.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

Amelia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





No, not just "someone" as if it could be "anyone" of us...  Just unlawful enemy combatants with an expressed intent to kill Americans.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



What war?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Now just on a whim of obama you can be decleared an enemy combatant.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Calling for the distrruction of America is not the same as calling for the over throw of the government.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






La la la...  Back to your militia tree fort, soldier!


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...


 Any minute now I expect you to shed tears over bin laden.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...






Keep ignoring all the facts that have been posted here demonstrating it was far from whimsical...


----------



## geauxtohell (Oct 4, 2011)

Amelia said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



We didn't kill Awlaki because it was "too messy".  We killed him because it was the best way to reach him in Yemen, where he was hiding out.

Once gain, Awlaki knew the government was after him for two years, he did nothing to change his fate.  He didn't even change his tone.  

If I align myself with the terrorist group responsible for the Cole, 9-11, Khobar Towers, Ft. Hood, and a multitude of other events, I wouldn't expect any quarter to be given on the battlefield simply because I am an American citizen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



 So standing up for an American citizens right for due process and I cry because bin ladin is dead?  OH WOW did you think of that without any help? I WIN.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



When were charges filed against him and what court were they issued from?


----------



## jillian (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



as opposed to the "enemy combatants" declared when bush was president?

like it or not.. presidents don't give back power taken by the last guy... which is why you have to watch out for what YOUR guy does, too.

second, i'm kinda bored of the fauxrage from people who would have been doing a victory dance if bush had done this.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Why don't we do predators bombs at the border? To get rid of those criminals from the south?  After all it would stop the need to have a border patrol and a fence


----------



## jillian (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What charges were filed against the people held in GITMO when bush was president and what court were the issue from?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Do you care about the rights of an American citizen jillian?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



How many were American citizens?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

Amelia said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...





The man evaded justice.  The case to cease the US executive order against him was thrown out of federal court and the court reiterated it's deference to the executive order.  He also had a dual citizenship in Yemen.  He failed to appear in Yemeni court and ended up with a wanted dead or alive warrant on his head.  The US military in cooperation with the Yemeni government shot to kill.  There was no 5th amendment criminal due process owed to him at that point.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



So we give all police department predoter drones and the FBI so we can take care of all those criminals on the run.


----------



## geauxtohell (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Congress hasn't authorized the use of force against the "Zetas" or any group other then Al Queda. 

That pretty much knocks the legs out of all your slippery slope strawman arguements.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...





No, LittleReb, a thousand times NO.  Thanks for demonstrating once again your lack of comprehension of the differences involved...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


The military isn't beholden to due process in this case.

Try reading the 5th Amendment for comprehension.

And then try reading it again for comprehension. Due process doesn't even apply to this terrorist's death.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

I think Liability said it best..........  ------->>>







Liability said:


> Sorry, but repeating your claim as though it was an established fact (which it isn't) doesn't convert your claim into anything substantial.
> 
> The President did not supersede the Constitution.  He did not deprive al-Awlaki of "due process."   There is no basis for you claim that the President lacks the Constitutional (and statutory) authority to order the killing of an enemy combatant in time of war regardless of his U.S. citizenship.  And that you don't care what Congress did is probably one of the reasons you keep repeating your unproved contentions.
> 
> You cannot support your claim regarding what the Constitution commands on this topic except, apparently, by reiterating your belief again and again.   And that fails to substantiate anything beyond the fact that you have a firm belief.






Liability said:


> You have yet to support YOUR contention that the fact of his American citizenship somehow differentiates al-Awlaki from any other enemy combatant in time of war.
> 
> Yes.  By birth, he was technically an American citizen.  But, no: that factoid provides no support for your contention that he was denied any Constitutional right under these  circumstances.







Liability said:


> You are wrong.  Lots of people are wrong on that topic.  An alien here in America has a right to trial by jury and for a felony, etc., he has a right to be indicted by a Grand Jury.  Yet an alien here is not a citizen.
> 
> Surely SOME of you must, by now, start to glean that at least SOME of the rights accorded to the People under our Constitution apply to PEOPLE not just to CITIZENS.
> 
> ...








Liability said:


> It is far from a useful insight to declare that "the Constitution applies to citizens."  Of course it does.  That's never been debated.
> 
> What the Constitution does or does not command is what has been debated.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Yes they are How does that oath go again? He's an American citizen, maybe you will be the next one I must defend.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Why is it so hard for you to comprehend little girl DUE PROCESS and American citizenship go hand in hand.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




From my reading it appears that the reason he was never charged was because they couldn't come up with a charge which would stick, and not one which would merit more than 15 years in prison.

In September 2010 they were still trying to figure out what  the charges might be, in case they couldn't kill him.  

But they couldn't figure out charges, so they d@mn well had to kill him.




No ... you shouldn't expect quarter on the battlefield for being an American citizen.  Big difference between things happening in the heat of battle, and you being specifically targeted for death for being a propagandist.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Here it is again for you, dummy.

Make an effort to read it.



> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



He wasn't "held."

The case arose during a time of war or public danger. The military is exempt from due process in this case.

Not that it applies since he wasn't held.

Now go right ahead and repeat one of your idiotic blurbs yet again.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



So defending the Constitution is a strawmwn? Maybe tomrrow you will be the next one obama see's as a terrorist.


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Of course it does you idiot.

Due process applies to any american citizen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Talk about stupid I ask for the oath and you give me this? Now that beyond stupid.

However he was deprived of life.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




SO, you think the president can send a drone to kill LA gangs then, huh? 

Good to know!


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

Dune said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


No it doesn't. But go right ahead and prove your case.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Damn, you are even stupider than I imagined.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 He can send drones to kill stupid people on the internet.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Depriving someone of life without due process would be what?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You would be the next one on his hit list


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...


Damn, you're even stupider than I thought.


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



From your post;



nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What the fuck is depriving of life without due process?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

Dune said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...


Show me where it says due process applies to any American citizen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Stupid post of the year^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

Still waiting....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Still waiting....



Your post will win the stupid post of the year


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

No answer, Dune?

I'm not surprised. It says _any person_, not any _American citizen_.

Basically we can take no person into custody and punish them without a fair trial.

We can however allow the military in times of war or trouble to kill our enemies.

Otherwise all wars we've been involved with would have required us to take every enemy soldier into custody and hold a trial.

The founding fathers weren't retards.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...





At least a finalist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> No answer, Dune?
> 
> I'm not surprised. It says _any person_, not any _American citizen_.
> 
> ...



The Constitution of The United states applies only to American citizens

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I can hardly teach you to read over the internet.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No answer, Dune?
> ...





Parts of it have been extended by interpretation and generosity to noncitizens.  But of course, at the core, it is a document about the rights and responsibilities of We the People of the United States.

I don't have an inkling of how to come to a meeting of the minds with people who don't understand that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Amelia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



AMENDMENT XIV 
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Still waiting....



Are you like a full blooded retard or something?


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Ask your mom or any adult.


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> No answer, Dune?
> 
> I'm not surprised. It says _any person_, not any _American citizen_.
> 
> ...



No, but you are.


----------



## Jos (Oct 4, 2011)

> Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.


Due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 4, 2011)

Jos said:


> > Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.
> 
> 
> Due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



How is the government supposed to give due process to someone hiding out in the foot hills of Yemen? if he turned himself in he would have recieved it.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






I hope you know I wasn't arguing with you.  Merely pointing out that some constitutional privileges have been extended by the courts to non-citizens.  For example, illegal aliens are given rights to trials - whether I like it or not.

But that in no way suggests that the Constitution isn't fundamentally about American citizens.

So essentially I agree with you, with one little caveat.


And I totally don't understand those who don't understand that the Constitution is about We the People of the United States.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Amelia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



I know I just added it for more evidence.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > > Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.
> ...



With all the military hardware we have and the special forces? COME ON they got to bin Ladin didn't they?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No answer, Dune?
> ...


LOL! You even can't read that for comprehension.

Pretty pathetic.


----------



## Jos (Oct 4, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > > Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.
> ...


What were the charges?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

Dune said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No answer, Dune?
> ...


 Nope, that would be you. Dismissed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Read my signature the first sentence. that comment of your's is the most stupidist comment I have ever read here,


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...






  Way to highlight your dishonesty!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So it my fault that she wrote a stupid comment? I didn';t force her to write it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Read my signature


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > > Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.
> ...



Simple. They try him in absentia.
Having then CONVICTED him of treason,
and SENTENCED him to death,
The drone strike would be completely legal
and applauded by all.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





Due process applies to all persons under certain circumstances, not just citizens...



If you want to be honest you need to provide the link to this post for the full context of the remark.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...n-citizens-for-or-against-25.html#post4225825


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





Why else do you think our resident mini militiaman is so concerned...?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Due process applies all the time period.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Your little snip is duely noted, I'll try to remeber it when a liberal's right's need to be defended.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

I have sigs turned off....but either way, you're pretty fucking stupid Buggerreb.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> I have sigs turned off....but either way, you're pretty fucking stupid Buggerreb.



Here's part of what it says buggereater ravi
Ravi on the Constitution 10/4/11
"Show me where it says due process applies to any American citizen."


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I have sigs turned off....but either way, you're pretty fucking stupid Buggerreb.
> ...


Sweet!

It applies to any person, not just any American citizen.

But of course you are too stupid to realize that.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I have sigs turned off....but either way, you're pretty fucking stupid Buggerreb.
> ...





Well, can you show where it specifies citizen or can't you..........?


And just to reiterate... *You have yet to support YOUR contention that the fact of his American citizenship somehow differentiates al-Awlaki from any other enemy combatant in time of war.*





Ravi, I'll let you know if he decides to be honest and add the link...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Don't worry about it. I've never noticed him to be honest before so I doubt he'll start now.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





Try to REMEMBER it's spelled DULY noted, spaz.  




bigrebnc1775 said:


> You would be the next one on his hit list







Seriously, Reb... You need to stop being so emotional and read for comprehension.

Liability summed the entire thing up and I went out of my way to put his posts together just now, in hopes that you might actually care to read them...


Awlaki was NOT denied due process, that is a lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




When the openning sentence of the U.S. Constitution says we the people of the unitied states  it's talking to and about UNITED STATES CITIZENS plus you have that pesky 14th amendment in the quoted post, and as for ravi being honest I'm still waiting to see that happen


bigrebnc1775 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Jos (Oct 4, 2011)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Or even Duely noted?


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



A bit like shooting a couple of cops dead if you come upon them beating someone as you have advocated in another thread?


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

Dune said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > The guy was NOT assassinated ,he was killed on the battle field,as the enemy,it really is that simple.
> ...



This war isn't two armies facing each other on a 'battlefield'.
It's terrorists hiding among civilians anywhere in the world that they can find a place to operate from.


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You don't consider the US to be under attack?


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dune said:
> ...



You must have very good eyesight to be able to split those hairs so finely.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The government we have right now is not America. America will never fall the government will.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Join half way into the discussion and ask a question
Being attacked is not being in a war.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


LOL! Seriously?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



 I have explained that already


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravi said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



move along liar you've had your 15 mins of stupid fame.


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't recall, remind me why that's different.
You come upon two cops beating someone up and without warning or enquiry you shoot them dead.
That's what you said you would do.
Where's due process?


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Oh.
Constant attacks from a declared enemy don't constitute a war?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




Is new zealand being Constant attack?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Search for it I am not going back and find the post.


----------



## Dune (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



Sorry, not a battlefeild. Words still have meaning. 
There is no U.S. fighting going on in Yemen,
Awlaki was targeted by remote controll.
He was assassinated.


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Nope


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Didn't y'all fight in Iraq? do you have terroist alerts?


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Nope. Nope.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Multi-National Force


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



They weren't deployed in a fighting role, and then only after bullying from your administration.


> Following a series of high-level rebukes and trade retaliation by the Bush administration over critical statements made by the New Zealand prime minister of the Iraq war, the Labour government has decided to send troops and army engineers to Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> (Prime Minister) Helen Clark  announced last week that 60 defence force engineers will be sent to help rebuild Iraq and a contingent of 100 armed soldiers to operate alongside so-called provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan. The troops will join New Zealand soldiers already on mine-clearing duty in Iraq and may be further boosted by the return of a navy frigate to the Gulf of Oman as well as an Orion reconnaissance aircraft.


New Zealand military to join occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan



> Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.


Bush: "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."


----------



## Si modo (Oct 4, 2011)

"Bullying"?

What a weanie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



They were there from 2003 until 2004 and some God bless them were killed.


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> "Bullying"?
> 
> What a weanie.



Almost made us cry you did


----------



## Si modo (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > "Bullying"?
> ...


----------



## idb (Oct 4, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It was a dangerous place alright!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2011)

idb said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > "Bullying"?
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



By your reading?  Where did the government say:  "Not enough to indict him, better just kill him."  What's the point in indicting someone who is hiding out in Yeman?  

He was a target of opportunity.  The opportunity presented itself, and we pulled the trigger.

It's that simple.

I am equally bewildered by this notion that propagandists for the enemy aren't fair targets.  As I said before, no one doubted that Goebbels was a legitamate target in World War II.  He killed himself because he knew that was more merciful than what the Soviets would do to him.


----------



## Paulie (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



That's not what I'm talking about though.  There was a "secret memo" regarding the details behind the whole situation.  

Nothing needs to be kept a secret about the details of the government's justification, reasoning, etc, for setting out to willfully kill a US citizen.

It's become way too easy for the government to simply justify secrets in the name of "national security".


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...




Not true.

Intelligence consists of the information gathered and the source of that information.  Release to the general public of classified information can often lead to (a) the source of that information and (b) the method used to gather the information (as in HUMINT, SIGINT, ELINT, etc.) which would then compromise the ability to gather (reliably) intelligence using the same methods/source in the future and (especially in the case of HUMINT) could lead the the capture and/or death of the source.

That's why there are Congressional oversight committees that are part of the "National Security" structure so they are read into these programs and receive briefings on the types of information developed and the sources that information comes from.

As an ELINT gatherer for the United States Navy, to this day I am still bound under provision of 18 USC §798 (Disclosure of Classified Information).



>>>>


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

It was NO secret that he continually preached Jihad in his "sermons" and was in close contact with active terrorist activity.  As someone else so eloquently put it, _the US Constitution is not a suicide pact!_







Al-Awlaki the dead terrorist - Jihad Watch


----------



## Xchel (Oct 5, 2011)

Valerie, so we attempt to take him into custody to charge him with treason...we don't just make him an assasination target...that is the solution our enemies would take with their citizens that is not something as Americans that we should ever approve of.  If we are so certain he is guilty of treason, capture his butt and try him..if he gets killed in the attempt to capture him well that is just the breaks but if he is captured he is tried...but hell we don't do what we did it just cheapens who we are as a country and our belief in justice.


----------



## Dune (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Obviously.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Valerie, so we attempt to take him into custody to charge him with treason...we don't just make him an assasination target...that is the solution our enemies would take with their citizens that is not something as Americans that we should ever approve of. * If we are so certain he is guilty of treason, capture his butt and try him..if he gets killed in the attempt to capture him well that is just the breaks *but if he is captured he is tried...but hell we don't do what we did it just cheapens who we are as a country and our belief in justice.






It wasn't an "assassination" list it was a "kill or capture" list and _that _(in BIG type) ^^ is exactly what happened...So really we agree and you are only speculating or imagining that it didn't happen that way...


He failed to show up in Yemeni court and continually evaded capture.  He refused to surrender himself and chose to hide away.  The US Military, in cooperation with the Yemeni government who had a warrant on his head, tried to negotiate with those who were harboring him and they continually refused to turn him in.  Meanwhile, our soldiers on the ground were under fire in the process.  The decision was made to target with a drone and the operation was ultimately successful.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Xchel said:


> Valerie, so we attempt to take him into custody to charge him with treason...we don't just make him an assasination target...that is the solution our enemies would take with their citizens that is not something as Americans that we should ever approve of.  If we are so certain he is guilty of treason, capture his butt and try him..if he gets killed in the attempt to capture him well that is just the breaks but if he is captured he is tried...but hell we don't do what we did it just cheapens who we are as a country and our belief in justice.



How are we supposed to do that? you make capturing Anwar sound so easy.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie, so we attempt to take him into custody to charge him with treason...we don't just make him an assasination target...that is the solution our enemies would take with their citizens that is not something as Americans that we should ever approve of. * If we are so certain he is guilty of treason, capture his butt and try him..if he gets killed in the attempt to capture him well that is just the breaks *but if he is captured he is tried...but hell we don't do what we did it just cheapens who we are as a country and our belief in justice.
> ...


Not that I take any pride in thinking like a likely terrorist, I sure as hell wouldn't try to turn myself in to any government who had standing orders to kill (or capture) me.  If I wanted to stay breathing, that is.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...





Yeah, that worked out so well for him, huh...?





Johnny Walker Lindh is still breathing, BTW.........  


_*

Walker Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison as part of an agreement reached in July under which he pled guilty to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a criminal information charge that he carried a rifle and two hand grenades while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance.

As part of the plea deal, the government dropped all other counts in a lengthy criminal indictment, including one of the most serious charges -- conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals. CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann was killed in the Mazar-e Sharif uprising.

"He was a soldier in the Taliban. He did it for religious reasons. He did it as a Muslim, and history overcame him," his attorney, James Brosnahan, said in July. 



Federal prosecutors have told the judge they have no objections to Walker Lindh's request to serve his prison time near his family. *_


CNN Programs - People in the News


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


WFT?

Two countries, the USA and Yemen, didn't have a dead or alive order on Lindh.

Again.  Yeah, it makes perfect sense to turn yourself into a government that has a kill order on you, if you have a desire to remain breathing.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



He could have arranged to turn himself in to a neautral country, that would have been a start.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Especially if you intend to end up a martyr for the Jihad cause in order to create more fodder for the spread of Anti-America propaganda...  



He would have received his due process if he had surrendered.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


And, it sure would be nice if there was any evidence of that. 





> ....  He would have received his due process if he had surrendered.


Or he would have been killed on sight.  That's how 'dead or alive' and 'kill or capture' orders work.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You can google Anwars videos on line, he was not shy about what he stood for.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


I understand what he stood for and, to me, that makes him a terrorist pig and a piece of shit.  Apparently, HE did not want to be a martyr, he recruited others for that.

Yes, he is a POS.  Yes, he did have ugly rhetoric toward the USA.  As far as I know, ugly rhetoric is not a capital crime, in the USA, that is.

If it is now, I need to know.  As a citizen, I value free speech and living.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Hes the one who trained and equipped the underwear bomber who landed in Detroit, and he had conversations with Nidal Hassan and inspired him to kill Soldiers on Fort Hood, those are crimes.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Absolutely.

If propaganda on behalf of an enemy at war with us by one of their leaders is not a part of their war effort, then where DO we draw the line  as to what constitutes acts of war by an enemy?m  And let's be honest here.  Al-Awlaki's propaganda was not just rancid "words."  They were effective recruitment efforts and they were motivational exhortations to take up arms against the enemy of al qaeda, us.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Did you think bin laden didn't deserve to die, as well?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Yes, they are.  And, the evidence is sole-sourced evidence from those who convicted, sentenced, and killed him.

Now that's some scary power - no balance, no check - that the Constitution was designed to prevent.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie, so we attempt to take him into custody to charge him with treason...we don't just make him an assasination target...that is the solution our enemies would take with their citizens that is not something as Americans that we should ever approve of.  If we are so certain he is guilty of treason, capture his butt and try him..if he gets killed in the attempt to capture him well that is just the breaks but if he is captured he is tried...but hell we don't do what we did it just cheapens who we are as a country and our belief in justice.
> ...




It is, just give Jack Bauer 44 minutes and he could have done it.

I know that for a fact as I saw it on TV.


>>>>


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






   Keep pretending there was no evidence. 


Just because you aren't personally privy to certain intel, doesn't mean it didn't exist and wasn't properly reviewed by the legal authorities.  He was a KNOWN entity considered an imminent threat.  He evaded being "on sight" by initially failing to face his charges in Yemen, so why do you continue to project a complete fabrication as if were true?  He CHOSE to not avail himself of the opportunity to due process by failing to show up which THEN prompted the dead or alive warrant.  Fact not opinion.  Even then they tried to negotiate and gave him a chance to surrender, but IMO he preferred to die a martyr for his cause...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Xchel said:
> ...




If he was interested in obtaining due process for himself (something his organization was not interested in as it was responsible for slaughtering thousands of innocent Americans BTW) - he could have walked up to the US Embassy in Yemen with his hands raised and tell the Marine he wasn't armed.  They would have searched him and he'd have been just fine.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




"Kill *OR CAPTURE*" - turning yourself falls under the "OR CAPTURE" part.


>>>>


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


That's not what I am doing, but keep trying to say that it is.

The evidence is sole-sourced by those who indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and ordered a kill of him.

I am not OK with that.




> ....  Just because you aren't personally privy to certain intel, doesn't mean it didn't exist and wasn't properly reviewed by the legal authorities.  He was a KNOWN entity considered an imminent threat.  He evaded being "on sight" by initially failing to face his charges in Yemen, so why do you continue to project a complete fabrication as if were true?  He CHOSE to not to avail himself of the opportunity to due process by failing to show up which THEN prompted the dead or alive warrant.  Fact not opinion.  Even then they tried to negotiate and gave him a chance to surrender, but IMO he preferred to die a martyr for his cause...


Thankfully, and usually, opinions are not enough to execute an American without due process.  It's an inherent right guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights.

The integrity of our Bill of Rights is far more important to me.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

>


After getting nailed by a missile, Anwar made his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington.

"How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping Anwar in the face. Patrick Henry comes up from behind: "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Anwar on the nose. James Madison comes up next, and says, "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Anwar's knee.

Anwar is subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe and 65 other 18th-century American revolutionaries. As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.

As Anwar awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams, "This is not what I was promised!"

An angel replies: "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?"



>>>>


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


OR KILL.  The 'or' implies both are possible.  I bet you knew that, though.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



That's not exactly true.  Maj. Hassan WROTE to al-Awlaki about joyfully anticipating joining him in the afterlife.  

Further:  





> On Dec. 23, 2008, days after he said Hasan first e-mailed him, Aulaqi also posted online words encouraging attacks on U.S. soldiers, writing: "The bullets of the fighters of Afghanistan and Iraq are a reflection of the feelings of the Muslims towards America," according to the NEFA Foundation, a private South Carolina group that monitors extremist Web sites.


 -- Cleric says he was confidant to Hasan


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




Either or is possible depending on the scenario.  If he refused to turn himself in he could be killed, if he could not be captured he could be killed.  If he was captured or turned himself in (a form of capture) he would have been just fine.

It was not a "CAPTURE *AND* KILL" list, one *OR* the other as opposed to kill *AND* capture.

I bet you knew that, though.



>>>>


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


I adore Marines.  However, the Marine would have been perfectly right to shoot him on sight.

If I were him and interested in turning myself in, I would have rallied as many reporters as I could to accompany me on my surrender.  Of course, with a 'kill order' on me by the US government, as soon as I got inside anyone could have executed me with no ramification whatsoever.  If I were betting with my life, I would not take that bet.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Yep. That's why I wrote 'or'.  Kill or capture - both equally possible.

It's fun typing the same thing over again.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

I really don't understand the mindset that believes an American can join forces with the enemy and be treated as if he or she were not the enemy nor a military target.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




I call bullshit on the idea that a Marine would have shot an unarmed man in the process of surrendering himself to lawful authorities.

Once detained (and no longer able to lead an organization that slaughtered thousands of Americans) there would be no need to have killed him and then he could have exercised his due process rights because that point it would have been a criminal case.



>>>>


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


I didn't say he would.  Read what I said.

RIF.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




"OR" dictates one of two options, not both.  If he had turned himself in then the "Capture" clause would have been complete eliminating the "Kill" clause which would then go to criminal proceedings for adjudication.


The difference between your typing and mine though is that mine is logical and makes sense, your's stretches imagination to try to make a failing point arguing about "OR" (selection of one of two options) and "AND" (a conditional requiring the completion of both options). 


>>>>


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> I really don't understand the mindset that believes an American can join forces with the enemy and be treated as if he or she were not the enemy nor a military target.


I know.  You are not alone.  One man is not worth the integrity of our Bill of Rights.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




RIF says the poster not understanding the difference between "OR" and "AND".



>>>>


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Seriously, that's just lame.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't understand the mindset that believes an American can join forces with the enemy and be treated as if he or she were not the enemy nor a military target.
> ...



One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Targeting an enemy leader does not implicate the Bill of Rights. 

Unfortunately, the mistake you make in that regard is shared by lots of people.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




Then why did you go down the road where you needed the difference explained to you?



>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


You did say the marine could shoot him. But that isn't true. You don't shoot someone that surrenders. THAT would violate due process.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


The Marine cannot violate a right that no longer exists.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Still lame.

It probably stems from your inability to read what I wrote.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Exactly, he could have turned himself in to the US Embassy in Yemen and he would have recieved due process, Anwar was not interested in due process he just wanted to kill Americans.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



If Anwar was really interested in due process he could have turned himself in to a neautral party like the Swiss embassy, Anwar was not interested in due process though.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



That US Marine Embassy Guard is still subject to the UCMJ, if he fired on Anwar and he was unarmed he would face a US Military court martial.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Once you are in custody you are entitled to due process.

It's really pretty simple.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Maybe he could have.  With a kill order on me, I would not because there would be a good possibility that I could end up in the hands of those who had placed the kill order on me.

Maybe he wasn't interested in it.  I don't know.  I do know that the Executive Branch unilaterally suspended the Bill of Rights.  No check.  No balance.

The integrity of the Bill of Rights is more important to me than this POS.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


His right to that no longer existed, per the Executive Branch.  It's really pretty simple.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





Pretty hilarious how I see posts from you splattered all over this board calling others IDIOT.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Okay ... I'm sucked in again and it's only 11:33 in the morning.   Alright.  Okay ... if I can stick with one post on this today, I'll be okay.    Here goes:



Why should he turn himself into the U.S. Embassy?  There were no charges against him.   On what grounds would he turn himself in?

And why would he want to turn himself in and commit his safety to a government which ordered him assassinated without so much as filing a charge?






Would YOU trust a country which put you on an assassination list without filing a single charge against you?  Would you turn yourself into them - when they still hadn't said what crimes you committed but had already declared you worthy of death -  and trust that you would be treated fairly?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Why is that funny to you?

The Executive Branch did suspend his right to due process. Fact.  The executive is the President.  Fact.  He is also the CiC.  Fact.  Marines are part of the military.  Fact.

See if you can connect the dots. 

As I said, the integrity of the Bill of Rights is more important to me than this man.  That's where I stand.  I know many don't like it, but I like my position.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Don't beat yourself up I tryed to ask that yesterday.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





> the integrity of the Bill of Rights is more important to me than this man.  That's where I stand.






> I know many don't like it, but I like my position


I'm with you,


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





Yeah, as if those who disagree with you don't care about the Bill of Rights. 




Again, the executive order was "kill or capture".  


Several people have explained here what that means, and how due process applies, so see if YOU can connect those dots, huh...?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




Fact, you forgot one.

Fact, the Legislative Branch is the one that authorized the use of military force.



>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 This was not done on the whim of one person. And there was no suspension of the Bill of Rights. No where in the bill of rights does it even _imply_ that Americans can join the enemy and not be treated as the enemy.

I do believe your extreme hatred of Obama has clouded your mind.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Now you've simply started to sputter and lie.

Sad.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Ummm, the right to due process is the 5th.  That's smack dab in the middle of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Oh? Who do you think suspended his right to due process?


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




The Bill of Rights STILL has no applicability to this matter.

None.



> "If an American is stupid enough to make cause with terrorists abroad, to frequent their camps and take part in their plans, he or she can't expect their citizenship to work as a magic shield," said another U.S. official. "If you join the enemy, you join your fate to his."


 --   U.S. Citizen in CIA's Cross Hairs       : Information Clearing House -  ICH

It appears to be the CIA who executes the *kill or capture* order.  Accordingly, if a person ON the list (assuming he even knew he was on the list) wished to surrender himself to the Americans, he COULD go the Embassy, consulate office or a marine base.  It is a virtual certainty that as long as that surrendering  individual complied FULLY with all orders from the marines, he would not be shot as Marines tend to comply with orders including the law.  And there's no reason to presume that a Marine would even know who is or is not on the kill or capture list, anyway.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





> Yeah, as if those who disagree with you don't care about the Bill of Rights



and they don't it doesn't matter that no warrant' were issued for him it doesn't matter that no charges were filed against him. It doesn't matter that he was placed on a hit list. It doesn't matter what he did or said he still had due process. No president has that much power. What people are doing is justifing the assissnation because obama placed him on the terrorist list.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



We don't issue warrants for enemies. Not Nazis, not Vietcong, not AQ.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I don't think the man ever had any intention of turning himself in or requesting due process, I am saying he could have gone that route rather than being blown up by a drone. Anwar was on the most wanted list so yes he could have turned himself in.

Most wanted: Anwar al-Awlaki &#8211; CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



A Marine won't shoot Anwar if he was unarmed because if he did he would face a US Military court martial.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...






One more thing ...   it was a secret that his name was on kill or capture list until someone leaked that Awlaki was on it.

Even with it public, why would someone turn themselves in to the embassy of a country who ordered their assassination without filing a single charge against them?

But as absurd as that is, you guys are saying he should have protected himself by turning himself in to the embassy because he was on a list he wouldn't even have known he was on if someone didn't leak it.  



Incredible.


.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


It wasn't a secret.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



But we do for American citizens, still trying to justify this I see.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



If he had turned himself in he would have recieved this due process you guys are ranting and raving about, its really that simple.

Incredible.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Too bad Anwar wasn't captured alive, Amelia would have a hell of an attorney for him.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Criminals, yes. Enemies, no.

Like I told you days ago, if an American had joined the Nazis he would be a legitimate military target.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



You actually trust a governemt that places it's citizen on a hit list?


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...





Even if it wasn't, it is absurd that he would turn himself into a country which ordered him killed without having enough evidence to file serious charges against him.

But reports say that it was secret.  It was reported in January 2010 that he had been put on the list late in 2009.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




Being in a leadership position in a terrorist organization responsible for the slaughter of thousands of American Citizens and not realizing the United States Military in persecuting a War on Terror the the United States Government would want to have a conversation with me.


Oh - wait that's why I was hiding in a forgien country.


Your right, that's "incredible".



>>>>


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



He could have turned himself in to a third party country einstein.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



He could have turned himself in to the Swiss or the French, if he was looking for this due process you guys are ranting and raving about.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



True dat.

Now, maybe the schmuck shouldn't turn himself into a CIA base station ...

but it is the CIA, not the Marines, who execute that whole Kill of capture list thingie.


----------



## Samson (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?



Absolutely.

I'd like to see a lockdown in every state and federal prison as soon as we could find and distribute enough cyanide gas to assassinate every convict therein.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





> Like I told you days ago, if an American had joined the Nazis he would be a legitimate military target



Like  told you they never were placed on a hit list nor were the Japanese. 



> But we do for American citizens, still trying to justify this I see.


Criminals, yes. Enemies, no.[/QUOTE]

who put him on the list the man who also orde the assissination?  Were their any charges filed?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Samson said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?
> ...



Thats fine they had their day in court but what about those who were placed ona hit list without charges?


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Anwar could have turned himself in to a third party country like Switzerland if he was really interested in recieving due process, but he wasn't interested in that, just killing Americans.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Why would he turn himself in? That would be like you turning yourself in for possibly running a red light and you think a cop might have saw you run it.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


You really are fucked in the head.


----------



## Samson (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If I thought I might be assasinated for running a redlight, I'd turn myself in for due process.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





If someone in the press hadn't leaked it, the list might still be secret.   What would have led him to believe he should turn himself in to any party, U.S., "third party", or otherwise while the list was still secret?  

You guys are making pretzels out of yourselves to justify our country putting a citizen on a kill list without having enough evidence to file charges against him.





My position is simple.  He was a fair target if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and our military made a legitimate strike on that place.  But he shouldn't have been explicitly ordered killed until we knew we had charges which would back up that order if he were ever caught.  We should have been looking for him, and executing the war, and working on those charges.  We could have been doing all at once.  And if he were killed during that process, that would have been fair.  But we shouldn't have explicitly ordered a citizen's death, regardless of whether the list was secret or not, without even having filed charges against him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Really you stupid bitch samson posted it I commented so you said nothing to samson?


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Samson said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



BINGO.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



I don't have to justify anything, Anwar was on the most wanted list and did not turn himself in and was killed in an Al Qaeda hide out, end of story. Grab some tissues and wipe your fuckin face, he's dead.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Samson said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Not really because you would never thinbk twice about turn yourself in for a supposed violation.


----------



## Samson (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The blithering idiot knows I ignore whatever she says.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Most wanted: Anwar al-Awlaki &#8211; CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He was on the most wanted list, and he was taken out. Case closed, on to the next.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

Anyone know the names of the other Americans on our government's hit list(s)?  We have more than one list.  There is the CIA list and JSOC at least.  I don't know how many others.



.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



How are you going to tell Samson what he would or wouldn't do?


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Anyone know the names of the other Americans on our government's hit list(s)?  We have more than one list.  There is the CIA list and JSOC at least.  I don't know how many others.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Gary Coleman and 2pac.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




Why did Saddam hide in a filthy underground "spider hole?"

Because he feared receiving justice more than he loathed living like a fucking sewer rat.

A shit stain like al-Awlaki had a slightly different agenda.  He wanted to go on fomenting the killing of the civilian population (amongst others) of the Great Satan.  Kinda hard to do that for the greater glory of Islam if one has surrendered TO the Great Satan.  And, let's face it, he surely hoped to avoid ever being found and captured or killed.  

He plunked his money down and rolled the bones.

Damned if he didn't come up snake eyes.

Now, as to the FREQUENTLY ignored point, I suppose now is as good a time as any to re-state it (so it can be ignored a few more times):

*The Bill of Rights has NO APPLICABILITY to the matter of putting an enemy leader on a kill or capture list in time of war REGARDLESS of that enemy leader's happenstance status as a U.S. citizen.* 

The Bill of Rights pertains to the LEGAL system.  Courts.  Lawyers.  Grand Juries.  Indictments.  Trials.  The associated rights of PEOPLE (*not* just citizens) to all those legal benefits, rights and formalities -- in a primarily CRIMINAL Law context.


----------



## Samson (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Yes apparently so.

Bigrebnc, could you please tell me what www.octopron site I should visit next?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Squidboi isn't the one running around crying over the death of a terrorist.

You're perfectly fine with gassing convicts.

You're a fraud birfer, a total fraud.


----------



## The Gadfly (Oct 5, 2011)

Samson said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?
> ...



I'll second that motion! Just a couple of applications of that, and the crime rate would drop to near zero in a year or two.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Unlike you I'm crying over thew death OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS
And the convicts got there day in court.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Please, you are being over dramatic. You make it sound like the US send drones after Gandhi or Aberham Lincoln.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Fuck off I saw the thank you to ravi for her pull her head out of her ass post to me.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Not really.  You are voicing your concern over the ALLEGED violation of the Constitutional provisions regarding DUE PROCESS, but you decline to address the point on square terms.

The Bill of Rights applies to the legal process and primarily to criminal law and proceedings associated with the criminal law.  

Terrorism and waging war against the United States are not criminal law concerns.  They are military concerns.  They are national security concerns.  The Bill of Rights does not provide procedural safeguards to the enemies of this Republic at war against us in TIME of WAR.  The Bill of Rights still has no applicability here and it is not dead nor mortally wounded nor wounded at all.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So? what are you going to do about it tough guy?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


It doesn't matter if they got their day in court. It's unconstitutional to gas, or even kill, most convicts.

You've just proven (well, for the fifth or sixth time) that you know nothing about the constitution and in fact are an overly hysterical idiot consumed by a deep hatred of the president.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



And saddened by the death of the love of his life, Anwar Al-Awlaki.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The act of terrorism is a crime.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Go to hell you fucking son of a bitch.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Hey.  I happen to disagree with bigreb, but his CONCERN is over the Constitution and our allegiance to it.

Even if, as I contend, that concern is misplaced in this context, that doesn't suggest that bigreb has any love for the likes of al-Awlaki.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Say it to my face bitch.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I am sorry your boyfriend Anwar passed away but don't worry you will find a new man.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The act of terrorism is an act of war.

Waging war is an act of war.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



(5) the term Federal crime of terrorism means an offense that

United States Code: Title 18,2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries | LII / Legal Information Institute
CITE-
    18 USC CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM                             01/07/2011

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C113B.txt


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Of course.  But terrorism is not JUST a criminal act.  It is also an act of war by (in this case) the declared enemy and it is happening IN Time of War.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




*And the penalties are as follows*
Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties

-STATUTE-
      (a) Homicide. - Whoever kills a national of the United States,
    while such national is outside the United States, shall - 
        (1) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)),
      be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for
      any term of years or for life, or both;
        (2) if the killing is a voluntary manslaughter as defined in
      section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
      imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
        (3) if the killing is an involuntary manslaughter as defined in
      section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
      imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

      (b) Attempt or Conspiracy With Respect to Homicide. - Whoever
    outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a
    conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States shall - 
        (1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a
      murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or
      imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
        (2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to
      commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111(a)
      of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to
      effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or
      imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined
      and so imprisoned.

      (c) Other Conduct. - Whoever outside the United States engages in
    physical violence - 
        (1) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of
      the United States; or
        (2) with the result that serious bodily injury is caused to a
      national of the United States;

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
    years, or both.
      (d) Limitation on Prosecution. - No prosecution for any offense
    described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States
    except on written certification of the Attorney General or the
    highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with
    responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of
    the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce,
    intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian
    population.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So?


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



A crime comes with criminal penalties.  I already acknowledged that it is a crime ALSO.

But by addressing that that crime comes with penalties, YOU are not addressing that it is ALSO an Act of War.  

Accordingly, I'll repeat something:

Where the same conduct is BOTH a crime AND an Act of War, the Government's response is not necessarily limited to JUST the criminal law component.  The government appears to be able (validly) to address the conduct EITHER as mere criminal behavior and then proceed accordingly (arrest, grand jury, indictment, lawyers, trial, etc.)

*OR* to go after the enemy combatant in the manner we often go after enemy combatants in time of war.

I guess I am failing to see why the government's response is or should be limited to "just" the more restrictive criminal law realm.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





Well one "so" is ....

so that is why he needed to be killed and not captured.  Because the sentences for the things the government said he was guilty of didn't come close to justifying the government's de facto death sentence, so they never wanted him to be seen in a court where they would have had to formalize their accusations against him.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...






It didn't need to limit it to that.  But it should have done that also.   They could have gotten him without declaring him a target for assassination by targeting his companions while they dotted their criminal i's and dotted their criminal t's.  

There were lots of ways to make him sweat - and to make him dead - without putting him on a formal death list when they didn't have the charges to back it up.

They should have worked on both - pursuing him and nailing down the best legal case they had.   Instead they had to try extra hard to kill him not capture him because they knew they didn't have him on capital charges.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

high_gravity said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...



care to show where the penalty is death?


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> high_gravity said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So?


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It is not AT ALL clear that we "could" have gotten al-Awlaki in any other way.  

Nor is it at all clear that the cost to us of attempting to do so would have been justifiable.

It is also not at all clear that YOUR preference (i.e., that we "should" have used some OTHER method than the kill option that was chosen) is or ought to be binding on those who HAD the choice to make and who then MADE their selection.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list he could have turned himself in for a trial.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



What war? We also have a war on drugs gangbanggers who deal with drugs are also terrorist
(iv) section 1010A of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (relating to narco-terrorism). 
United States Code: Title 18,2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Moreover, the fact that the possible sanction for the CRIME of terrorism (involving murder) is limited to a possible LIFE sentence does not lead to the conclusion that for the Act of War the penalty is not properly termination.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American.  They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That's a tripe answer.  The AUMF *is* a declaration of war.  Lots of people "disagree" with that contention, but hat's also myopic crap, imho.  Congress authorized the use of this Nation's military might.  It's a damn declaration of war.

And the cheesy bullshit rhetoric that we sometimes use hyperbole to describe *other* social issues is quite unpersuasive.  We have no ACTUAL war on poverty nor do we have an actual war on drugs.   Our fighting forces have died in this war and lots and lots of our enemies have died, too.  

There is no valid comparison between a war on poverty and a war against those responsible for the 9/11 2001 attacks.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Bullshit, even if they had done that you could still be here crying and complaining about as if Mother Teresa had died.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



They could have hopped on one leg.   So what?

They were confronted with the potential for sanctioning a leader of our enemy in time of war.  They made that call.

He brought it down on his own fucking head.

That YOU would have preferred the legal system is ok.  But it's not controlling.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...





He was on an extermination list which was secret until someone in the media found out about it and leaked it.  

There were no charges filed against him.  Why would he turn himself over for trial if he didn't know about the list?  and then later when he did know about the list but didn't know what the charges would be? and when he had no reason whatsoever to trust his life in the hands of someone who would put him on a secret hit list when  in spite of them not having anything on him which would merit more than a few years in jail.  

The U.S. gov't wanted him dead and that was that.  Why would he turn himself over to such a gov't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



We have no congressional declearation of war. We haven't had one since World War 2


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



He was a leader of the enemy at war with us.  *He* made that choice.  Why *shouldn't* he have been one of the enemies we seek to terminate in war?


----------



## Amelia (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





I didn't prefer the legal system.  I want both.  As an American citizen he was entitled to due process and he did not get it.

Our government took the easy way out because they didn't have anything they could pin on him but they wanted him dead.




Okay ... I knew this would happen.


I'm really really really done with this.  I have to be.  Gonna walk away until I can control my impulse to jump in and express my disgust with people who are okay with our gov't killing its citizens when they don't have charges to bring against them.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



NONSENSE.

The AUMF *is* a declaration of war.  

The Constitution does not prescribe any particular phraseology.  What it COMMANDS is that it must be Congress that authorizes the use of the nation's military might.  Congress did so.

YOU might prefer that it say "We hereby Declare War."  But the Constitution doesn't require that your preference be satisfied.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Rubbish he was on the most wanted list, he could have turned himself in.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list, he could have turned himself in to the US Embassy in Yemen and recieved due process.


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



*How would they have gone about bringing him back for trial?*


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I would like to know the answer to this myself, people make it sound so easy.


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



*If they could have captured him, they probably would have brought him back for trial.*


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



No no.  Don't waffle on it now.  You stated your preference.  And that ex[pressed preference was for the legal system option.

Again, terrorist behavior is BOTH a crime and an Act of War.  This presents the Government with a CHOICE.  They MAY if they are so advised treat it as (exclusively or mostly) a criminal act worthy of criminal prosecution.  

*Alternatively*, they can treat it as the act of war it (also) is.

If they made the choice to treat his case as primarily constituting the waging of war against us in time of war, then their decision is a military choice or a national security choice or both.

They MADE that choice and you cannot state a single solitary principled reason why they should not have been permitted to make that choice or to make the decision in the very way they ultimately did.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Yes and got all kinds of juicy information from him.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Well, not really.  Once he got his Miranda warnings, and his lawyer, you can be pretty damn sure he'd invoke his "right to remain silent."


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



*Yeah, they could have tortured him live on the FOX Network.*


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



You never know, he might pussy out and try to make a deal. This guy did solicite prostitutes in San Diego twice.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yeah.  But to make a deal, he'd have to go all snitch at the trials of all the other guys we'd have to be prosecuting.

What kind of credibility would a snitch have under THOSE circumstances?

Upon further reflection, I think we'd have to all agree:  he's better off dead.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I agree, fuck him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



It's not a declaration of war but it does give the president the authority to kill anyone he chooses to

Authorization for Use of Military Force
 September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
 (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- 
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
 (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001. 


Here he has the approval to act as he so chooses, and now we are at another cross road to say it's ok Mr. President you can have any American killed at your whime, just as long as you declear them a terrorist. We gave away our due process because of an emotional out burst due to the fact we were attacked, let's not allow this to happen again. Time to repeal this shit.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So?


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No.  It is a declaration of war.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 5, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


I believe you've worked hard enough and deserve the title of Martyr of the Year.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yes, Anwar would be so proud of his boyfriend for sticking up for him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

high_gravity said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...



so? Wtf?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



You are a total ass up and down ass.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

>


Now some people know what its like to be the ALCU when they fight in court for something on principal like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religoin, anti-discrimination - even when the person they are defending is (or was) a total scum bag.



>>>>


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What? you like upside down ass?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> Now some people know what its like to be the ALCU when they fight in court for something on principal like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religoin, anti-discrimination - even when the person they are defending is (or was) a total scum bag.
> ...



No one that I know in this discussion was defending the person. they were and are defending his rights. which most if not should have been doing that


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...



Yep, just like the ACLU defending a persons rights and not defending a person.



> which most if not should have been doing that



I stand fully in support of Awlaki having his due process rights protected, if he had turned himself in and been detained for trial - fully support that.

However this was not a criminal case is was military action as part of an ongoing war with actions authorized under the Constitution Article I Section 8.



>>>>


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...



Having CHOSEN to become a leader of our enemy in time of war, al-Awlaki had the absolute right to be made dead.  I am gladdened that we vindicated that right.


----------



## idb (Oct 5, 2011)

I think most people would have felt better if the legal route was taken.
But war is messy and shitty and sometimes the opportunities have to be taken when they present themselves.
Obviously the WH and their advisors felt that they were on defendable ground with their actions and that the greater good was served by the suspension of any notion of due process for this guy.
If they had filed a charge against him then he would most likely have been able to carry on his activities for ever as he would have been unlikely to be captured and he would have been immune from a strike.
The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe.


----------



## chesapeakeguy (Oct 5, 2011)

What a stupid question. It is not about 'assassinating American citizens', it IS all about defending the nation. Period. This 'American citizen' declared war on his own country, and actively worked for this nation's enemy to render harm upon us. Taking out the enemy's military leaders is an ACCEPTED action. Generals and admirals of the opposing sides were routinely targeted in WWII and conflicts afterwards. Gen. Schwarzkopf had round-the-clock protection to prevent enemies from hurting or capturing him during the First Gulf War. This clown was an enemy combatant. he was fair game, just like Bin Laden was! Good riddance, and good shooting people!

Here's a relevant question I have: why is the 'underwear bomber' not at Gitmo? Why is he being tried in a civilian court?


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

chesapeakeguy said:


> What a stupid question. It is not about 'assassinating American citizens', it IS all about defending the nation. Period. This 'American citizen' declared war on his own country, and actively worked for this nation's enemy to render harm upon us. Taking out the enemy's military leaders is an ACCEPTED action. Generals and admirals of the opposing sides were routinely targeted in WWII and conflicts afterwards. Gen. Schwarzkopf had round-the-clock protection to prevent enemies from hurting or capturing him during the First Gulf War. This clown was an enemy combatant. he was fair game, just like Bin Laden was! Good riddance, and good shooting people!
> 
> Here's a relevant question I have: why is the 'underwear bomber' not at Gitmo? Why is he being tried in a civilian court?



They don't have his special style of panties at Gitmo?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



A few lawyers have defended guilty people because of due process.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



A few apples have fallen from a few trees over the course of history.

It's true, but not responsive or especially meaningful.

Of COURSE some lawyers have defended guilty people.

What does that have to do with the point that this isn't a LEGAL matter at all?

This is a military matter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

idb said:


> I think most people would have felt better if the legal route was taken.
> But war is messy and shitty and sometimes the opportunities have to be taken when they present themselves.
> Obviously the WH and their advisors felt that they were on defendable ground with their actions and that the greater good was served by the suspension of any notion of due process for this guy.
> If they had filed a charge against him then he would most likely have been able to carry on his activities for ever as he would have been unlikely to be captured and he would have been immune from a strike.
> The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe.





> The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe



Actually it's first priority is to insure all citizens rights are protected, but since 9/11/2001 that was thrown away for some safety.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I give up just hope this doesn't bite you in the ass.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I am sure it could bite us in the ass.  

I am just as sure that disallowing it, as you recommend, also could seriously bite us in the ass, and abdomen, and chest and neck....


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I think most people would have felt better if the legal route was taken.
> ...



The first job of OUR government is NOT to protect our rights.  The FIRST job of our government * is* to protect our physical security.  

The rights which you claim the government must protect are really OUR rights to protect.  This is why -- institutionally -- we are content to mistrust government.  I thought that was a basis of your expressed concerns, in fact.

But just as the Constitution set up a government designed to help curb the tendencies of government to over-reach and to transgress our individual rights and liberties, so too the Founders and the Framers were not a bunch of idiots.  They ALSO tried to create a government that -- while institutionally limited and checked -- was ALSO capable of doing the very things we create governments TO do.

They tried to strike a BALANCE.

The idea that we should SO TOTALLY HOBBLE the government from exercising any power (out of fear that Governments are run by people who might misuse power) that it cannot even do the very things we ask governments to do would NOT be consistent with the design and goals of the Founders and the Framers.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...






That's the thing... Slippery slopes can go both ways...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



protecting right's and keep us safe go hand in hand, but keeping us safe should not be so restrictive that it restricts individual rights. Thats why we have a Constitution that tell the government what it can and cannot do, and a bill of rights that are protected.


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



They do not protect our rights.  WE protect our rights.  We set our government up in part to make sure that WE don't have to rely on them to protect our rights.  

Protecting us is NOT restrictive.  There's the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the Merchant Marine and there's the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of the Federal Government and there are cops and other law enforcement agencies of the states as well as localities.   And there are the Courts.

The Constitution delineates the boundaries.  But WE tell them what they can and cannot do.  

When WE snuff out a leader of the enemy of ours in time of war, such as we have been in, what rights of ours have been restricted?

HIS might have been a little impacted.  Fuck him.  He made his choice and he can live (and die) with the consequences.  But eradicating him as a leader of the enemy is not interfering with ANY of our rights.  In fact, it serves to help make my rights more secure.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Not this time it is the government job to protect the rights of individuals thats why the fed was created in the first place.


----------



## rdean (Oct 5, 2011)

I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.  

Undeclared are those that want to destroy the American Middle Class.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 5, 2011)

rdean said:


> I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.
> 
> Undeclared are those that want to destroy the American Middle Class.



Scuse be but I think Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were self declared terrorists. Does the offer still go?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 5, 2011)

whitehall said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.
> ...


Why yes, yes they are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 5, 2011)

rdean said:


> I'm for assassinating self declared terrorists.
> 
> Undeclared are those that want to destroy the American Middle Class.



Rdean just wrote his suicide note. he's part of the terrorist group that wants to destroy the middle class..


----------



## Liability (Oct 5, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wrong.  It is the job of the government primarily to secure our safety and the civil society.  

It was and it remains OUR job to protect our own rights.  

The snuffing of a leader of the enemy (especially that kind of enemy) is absolutely something which serves to make my rights more secure.

None of our other rights exist without the right to be alive.  Rubbing out that miserable enemy leader sonofabitch serves to increase the odds that all of us will have a longer life.  Thus, all of our other rights have also been made more secure.

I can't stand President Obama, but there comes a time when you must give the devil his due.  I still applaud the decision he made to permit the CIA to get al-Awlaki.  

Good job.


----------

