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.
What is stunning is that partisanship allows for denial of inherent rights.
The same shit happened when GWB was in office. As long as 'my team' is stomping on inherent rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, it's OK to turn a blind eye to it.
The GWB Administration didn't execute any Americans without a trial, so the same shit didn't happen then.
Yes. It was all so different and sparkly when your guy was in office and we were fighting ground wars in Asia to kill Al Queda.
Love him or hate him, Obama's made it dangerous to be a member of Al Queda.
They aren't laughing at our impotence anymore.
OK, where is the proper 'battlefield' in our war against Al Qaeda?
Obviously, not in countries where we don't even have troops stationed. If no American troops have been fired on in hte immediate vincinity, then it isn't a battlefield.
What do think is the proper "battlefield" in our war against Al Queda?
Oh, so we need to start invading a bunch of countries before we can start hitting AQ targets there?
I guess we need to go into Pakistan now.
I am glad you aren't in charge of shit in this world. You'd get a lot of people killed for stupidity.
OK, where is the proper 'battlefield' in our war against Al Qaeda?
Obviously, not in countries where we don't even have troops stationed. If no American troops have been fired on in hte immediate vincinity, then it isn't a battlefield.
What do think is the proper "battlefield" in our war against Al Queda?
Oh, so we need to start invading a bunch of countries before we can start hitting AQ targets there?
I guess we need to go into Pakistan now.
I am glad you aren't in charge of shit in this world. You'd get a lot of people killed for stupidity.
Yes. It was all so different and sparkly when your guy was in office and we were fighting ground wars in Asia to kill Al Queda.
Love him or hate him, Obama's made it dangerous to be a member of Al Queda.
They aren't laughing at our impotence anymore.
It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.
Yes. It was all so different and sparkly when your guy was in office and we were fighting ground wars in Asia to kill Al Queda.
Love him or hate him, Obama's made it dangerous to be a member of Al Queda.
They aren't laughing at our impotence anymore.
It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.
Yes. It was all so different and sparkly when your guy was in office and we were fighting ground wars in Asia to kill Al Queda.
Love him or hate him, Obama's made it dangerous to be a member of Al Queda.
They aren't laughing at our impotence anymore.
It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.
Abu Ghraib, wire taps and Git-mo didn't do a whole lot. During all that time, did I see OBL taken out? Nope. Did I see Al-Rahman taken out? Nope. al-Awlaki? Nope. WTF?
Now I see a president with a REALLY BAD domestic policy. Can I give him credit for blasting the shot out of AQ? Yup.
But you can't. Party before country...
Yes. It was all so different and sparkly when your guy was in office and we were fighting ground wars in Asia to kill Al Queda.
Love him or hate him, Obama's made it dangerous to be a member of Al Queda.
They aren't laughing at our impotence anymore.
It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.
Do you seriously believe they are the same people? People who support the death penalty don't strike me as being overly concerned about whether an individual's rights, with the possible exception of their own, were violated in the process. Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
Which leads me to ask when. where and from whom did America get the idea that we must stoop to the level of our enemy in order to prevail? Because such posture is certainly most unbecoming.
Not an American not my fucking concern, take them out back and shot them in the head.Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.
Do you seriously believe they are the same people? People who support the death penalty don't strike me as being overly concerned about whether an individual's rights, with the possible exception of their own, were violated in the process. Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
Which leads me to ask when. where and from whom did America get the idea that we must stoop to the level of our enemy in order to prevail? Because such posture is certainly most unbecoming.
It's called due process and if they went through court and had a trial they got due process
Not an American not my fucking concern, take them out back and shot them in the head.Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
Do you seriously believe they are the same people? People who support the death penalty don't strike me as being overly concerned about whether an individual's rights, with the possible exception of their own, were violated in the process. Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
Which leads me to ask when. where and from whom did America get the idea that we must stoop to the level of our enemy in order to prevail? Because such posture is certainly most unbecoming.
It's called due process and if they went through court and had a trial they got due process
Not an American not my fucking concern, take them out back and shot them in the head.Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
It should be your fucking concern if innocent people are being tortured and murdered. By the way your attitude qualifies as "not an American" in my book, not that you give a shit. But I just thought I'd let you know anyway.
I never thought that Clayton-jones would get a thank-you from me. But there it is..
The only thing MORE disgusting than neocon conservatives who don't understand that the military is NOT just an extension of a SWAT team -- are Lefties who were all pizzed off about Bush denying "due process" to Gitmo detainees and now want more blood. Evidently, "enhanced interrogation" is a Constitutional problem for some lefties -- but running covert bombing operations over a sovereign non-hostile country and splattering guts is not.
Now the NeoCons OUGHT to be ones suggesting that the CIA, FBI, DOD, Executive Branch all play by the rules when conducting bombing raids in foreign countries. I would EXPECT THEM to understand my demand that CONGRESS (which is the sole Constitutional Authority for EXTENDED military operations) would have clearly authorized these types of missions. They have not. The Clowns on Capitol Hill have taken a pass on their duties so that they don't have to explain it to their constitutients. That's NOT a benefit I want to give to them. I want them to CO-ORDINATE between CIA, FBI, DOD, and Prez so that NONE of those entities start making their own lists of permissable operations.
It's damn frustrating to run open loop and have posters come on here with unproved assertions about why we violated the sovereignty of another country to bomb them and take out a "fugitive". Especially since that fugitive SHOULD have been in our custody YEARS ago on warrants that the FBI mysteriously withdrew. And NO ONE on this board can assert a single act of violence that Alaki played a material role in... He is mentioned in the 9.11 Commission as a "point of contact", and aquaintance, maybe even an advocate of Al Queda. But "leader" or "combatant" are largely unproven charges.
I don't even care about that. What I care about is that CONGRESS is supposed to be in charge. NOT the FBI, NOT the CIA, NOT the Joint Chiefs, NOT even the Prez when it comes to a 12 year WAR on Al Queda. And I don't care if 3 FBI dudes said he was a threat. I want Congress to declare the mission to go after these creeps and to CLEARLY STATE the rules for engagement. Before we light off a conflict with a country like Pakistan who CAN defend itself and MIGHT just choose to shoot back...
Right now we are showing less organization, respect for the law, and integrity than Barney Fife in the Mayberry P.D.
Congress doesn't make the rules of engagement, the military does. And hasn't Congress given permission to go after terrorists anyway?
Why do you always feel the need to lie?Actually, he thinks once they are arrested they are entitled to due process.Like Obama.
And they are.
Actually, he thinks they are entitled to due process even before that, unless he decides that they don't.
It wasn't secret, it was reported in the news when it happened.Of course it's not allowed to take up arms against the government.
Where is the evidence that he did so?
Rhetoric is not arms.
That's simply fucking scary if it is, now.
The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.
What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war, said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.
The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.
Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence
Apparently, their definition of "due process" is whatever they want it to be. It seems the Constitution got in the way of the President. He signed a super secret writ supposedly making the killing of an American citizen legal.
Do you really want to support the President having power to kill an American citizen at will?
What is to prevent the government from killing another U.S. citizen they deem a threat, without due process? Slap a label on you because they don't like what you are saying or doing, put you on a "hit" list, which, you may not even have the liberty of knowing about, and one day you are no more.
There is a reason why Treason is strictly defined in the Constitution.
Anwar al-Aulaqi wasn't a U.S. citizen.
End of story.
The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.
What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war, said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.
The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.
Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence
If you believe he wasn't a U.S. citizen, then the government did not violate his right of due process.
The military can't operate within the borders of the US.Obviously, not in countries where we don't even have troops stationed. If no American troops have been fired on in hte immediate vincinity, then it isn't a battlefield.
What do think is the proper "battlefield" in our war against Al Queda?
Oh, so we need to start invading a bunch of countries before we can start hitting AQ targets there?
I guess we need to go into Pakistan now.
I am glad you aren't in charge of shit in this world. You'd get a lot of people killed for stupidity.
So you think the government should have the authority to execute American citizens on any square yard of territory on the face of the Earth?
The definition of "the battlefield" is obviously the entire surface of the Earth. You would probably condone Predator attacks on American citizens in South Florida. In fact, you already have.
Actually, he thinks once they are arrested they are entitled to due process.
And they are.
So the military can kill you so long as someone doesn't arrest you first?
American citizens are entitled to due process all the time.
If the military had gone after him, in an attempt to apprehend him, and he opens fire on them, or puts their lives in danger, they (the military) have every right to defend themselves, in my opinion. In that regard, there are valid exceptions to the due process issue. It is not absolute, when the aforementioned scenario occurs.
However, the administration put a U.S. citizen on a "hit" list. And instead of trying to apprehend him when they were given information as to his whereabouts, they used a drone attack against him. And for that, the President wants the American people to rejoice over the fact that a bad guy was killed and we are safer for it.
A pathetic excuse for a human being was killed. But, at what expense? The Constitution took another death blow, in my opinion.
I think the President should be impeached for what he did.
No, I support the president in using the military to destroy military targets to include high level officials in the foreign enemies employ. That would include this individual.Of course it's not allowed to take up arms against the government.
Where is the evidence that he did so?
Rhetoric is not arms.
That's simply fucking scary if it is, now.
The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.
What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war, said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.
The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.
Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence
Apparently, their definition of "due process" is whatever they want it to be. It seems the Constitution got in the way of the President. He signed a super secret writ supposedly making the killing of an American citizen legal.
Do you really want to support the President having power to kill an American citizen at will?
What is to prevent the government from killing another U.S. citizen they deem a threat, without due process? Slap a label on you because they don't like what you are saying or doing, put you on a "hit" list, which, you may not even have the liberty of knowing about, and one day you are no more.
There is a reason why Treason is strictly defined in the Constitution.
It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.
Abu Ghraib, wire taps and Git-mo didn't do a whole lot. During all that time, did I see OBL taken out? Nope. Did I see Al-Rahman taken out? Nope. al-Awlaki? Nope. WTF?
Now I see a president with a REALLY BAD domestic policy. Can I give him credit for blasting the shot out of AQ? Yup.
But you can't. Party before country...
You really don't sound like you're a country before party person. Because if you were you would put the Constitutional process ahead of everything else.
What's to stop someone like Alex Jones (nutty that he is) from being declared such an "enemy of the state" and summarily executed?No, I support the president in using the military to destroy military targets to include high level officials in the foreign enemies employ. That would include this individual.
Why is this so acceptable to do to people that are not US citizens but the minute that a citizen does it suddenly it is unacceptable?
It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.
Do you seriously believe they are the same people? People who support the death penalty don't strike me as being overly concerned about whether an individual's rights, with the possible exception of their own, were violated in the process. Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
Which leads me to ask when. where and from whom did America get the idea that we must stoop to the level of our enemy in order to prevail? Because such posture is certainly most unbecoming.
It's called due process and if they went through court and had a trial they got due process
Not an American not my fucking concern, take them out back and shot them in the head.[/QUOTE]Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.
Hmmm. Interesting. So you're oh so concerned about adhering to the USC when it comes to Obama getting actual, confirmed members of AQ but it when it comes to prisoners who were actually captured - under Bush, it's screw the USC.
Yeah I guess that was predictible.
