Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Read this again that is if you read
I did not change the subject I am within the context of what this post mentioned
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
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.
he renounced his citizenship !!!Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?
By the way, Fitnah is much better than Fitrah....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, عزام الأمريكي , is high on the target list, too.
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
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.
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?
I've lost track...what was your point again
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.
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
How any of that relates to this discussion is beyond me.
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.
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?
I've lost track...what was your point again
You're not an American citizen so you would not understand
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?
I've lost track...what was your point again
You're not an American citizen so you would not understand
I win...too easy!!!!
Go on...give me another one.
You're not an American citizen so you would not understand
I win...too easy!!!!
Go on...give me another one.
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.
I win...too easy!!!!
Go on...give me another one.
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.
But...according to you Awlaki was never put on trial either.
Therefore the arguments are the same.
More, more, this is too easy!
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.
But...according to you Awlaki was never put on trial either.
Therefore the arguments are the same.
More, more, this is too easy!
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?
He sentenced himself to death by joining a terrorist group that is at war with the US....
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN
