Gingrich: Obama Terror Speech 'Breathtakingly Naive'

[Sunshine]

The AUMF allows the President of the United States to use the military to strike at Al Qaeda.

Are you disputing that Al Awlaki wasn't an agent of Al Qaeda and wasn't actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and destroy American infrastructure?

Is that what you are saying?

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

You are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Further, you and your buds tag teaming me doesn't make you look any smarter. It just makes you look that much more entrenched in misinformation.

 

[Erand7899]

Gingrich: Obama Terror Speech 'Breathtakingly Naive'

And why should anyone give the opinion of a proven partisan hack like Gingrich any weight at all.

As compared to a proven partisan hack like Obama? Truth is not tarnished by the mouth that utters it, and lies are not improved by the political stature of the speaker.

 

[Erand7899]

There is no such exception for American citizens.

Exception? WTF are you talking about? The Constitution is American and under it Americans cannot be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

If they join al qaeda, the due process they were due is the AUMF, in which Congress gave the Commander in Chief the authorization to use military force against them.

Some of you loons have trouble determining whether terrorism is a crime, or an act of war. If it is a crime, then due process of law is governing. If it is warfare, then the laws of war apply. You have the same confused thought processes of your messiah. You want it to be war when that is convenient to your justifications for killing terrorists, and you want it to be a crime when that is convenient.

So, was Benghazi a crime, or an act of war?

 

[Dot Com]

after vietraq occupation, rw'eres want to talk about justified use of force? delicious.

 

[GWV5903]

Gingrich? Thats like starting a Palin thread w/ a straight face

Really???

Why don't you address Gingrich's position in this video?

Could it be you cannot argue his point?

 

[Sallow]

You're pulling a Lakhota here aka troll deflection.

Why not address the OP instead of a bullshit post going over the list of what you perceive to be Gingrich's failings?

I'm not incorrect.

Gingrich is a bigot and a racist.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6Rs2MgGMI]Newt Gingrich wants Poor Children to Work as Janitors - YouTube[/ame]

That you believe this is bigotry and racism makes every conservatives point about earning it...

There is nothing wrong with his idea here, I had my first job at 11 delivering newspapers...

The DNC promotes more racism in this debate than anyone for the right...

Sallow, you know better...

This..alone is bad enough.

It gets worse when you look at the other racist and bigoted bullshit that comes from this guy's mouth.

This is a wildly radical idea that harkens back to the days Charles Dicken's wrote about.

It's a real eye opener anyone defends it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gingrich: Obama Terror Speech 'Breathtakingly Naive'

And why should anyone give the opinion of a proven partisan hack like Gingrich any weight at all.

As compared to a proven partisan hack like Obama? Truth is not tarnished by the mouth that utters it, and lies are not improved by the political stature of the speaker.

ALL republicans are partisan hacks. Don't you know that? Only democrats are not partisan hacks and the more partisan they are, the less hackneyed they become.

 

[Sallow]

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

You are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Further, you and your buds tag teaming me doesn't make you look any smarter. It just makes you look that much more entrenched in misinformation.

Answering a post not directed at you?

In any case, "legal scholar", the AUMF makes it perfectly legal for the President to do what he did.

I also remember another President, Clinton, who didn't have this power when he asked for Special Ops to kill Osama Bin Laden and was denied that by Congress. And the idiotic yarns you folks told about Clinton's failure to get that guy.

What happened?

Even armed with the AUMF..Bush didn't get him.

 

[Sallow]

Gingrich? Thats like starting a Palin thread w/ a straight face

Really???

Why don't you address Gingrich's position in this video?

Could it be you cannot argue his point?

And which position would that be?

Gingrich is the one that's incredibly naive about this..

 

[GWV5903]

I'm not incorrect.

Gingrich is a bigot and a racist.Newt Gingrich wants Poor Children to Work as Janitors - YouTube

That you believe this is bigotry and racism makes every conservatives point about earning it...

There is nothing wrong with his idea here, I had my first job at 11 delivering newspapers...

The DNC promotes more racism in this debate than anyone for the right...

Sallow, you know better...

This..alone is bad enough.

It gets worse when you look at the other racist and bigoted bullshit that comes from this guy's mouth.

This is a wildly radical idea that harkens back to the days Charles Dicken's wrote about.

It's a real eye opener anyone defends it.

Charles Dickens' ??? Really????

So in other words, if I cannot form a logical debate I will label you a racist...

Thanks for proving my point...

 

[GWV5903]

Gingrich? Thats like starting a Palin thread w/ a straight face

Really???

Why don't you address Gingrich's position in this video?

Could it be you cannot argue his point?

And which position would that be?

Gingrich is the one that's incredibly naive about this..

Naïve?

 

[GWV5903]

Gingrich? Thats like starting a Palin thread w/ a straight face

Really???

Why don't you address Gingrich's position in this video?

Could it be you cannot argue his point?

And which position would that be?

Gingrich is the one that's incredibly naive about this..

So let's see, in two post you can't dispute his point's, are you good for a third???

I'm sure you can...

 

[Sallow]

Really???

Why don't you address Gingrich's position in this video?

Could it be you cannot argue his point?

And which position would that be?

Gingrich is the one that's incredibly naive about this..

So let's see, in two post you can't dispute his point's, are you good for a third???

I'm sure you can...

What point?

Bush used the actions of a handful of stateless criminals to further the PNAC agenda of knocking over the oil rich Iraq to keep their resources from falling into the hands of the Chinese and the Russians.

But that sort of metastasized into something else..something that Osama Bin Laden was actually looking for..a global war between the west and the arab world.

Bush's nation building exercise failed miserably in both Afghanistan and Iraq. What it very nearly did was create an all out civil war in Iraq. And Afghanistan is still in ruins.

This all war all the time footing has created a great deal of animosity as well and radicalized a good many people. I suppose this is great for those who's business it is to support wars but it's bleeding the country dry. And it never needed to be that way.

Had Bush's reaction been proportional to the threat and had he made the necessary moves to assuage the outrage, this would have been squashed long ago.

Instead he left a crap sandwich for Obama to deal with.

 

[Dot Com]

^ that plus, it wasn'r paid-for you deficit hawks

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Before obama, how many American citizens were assassinated or executed without a trial? Without being engaged at that moment in combat?

obama has done it four times. How many before him?

If they were traitors engaging in war agains their own country.....not enough of them

If they were traitors that deserves a trial, have them stripped of their citizenship and then do whatever the government wants to do with them. Torture them, put them in front of a firing squad, bring back the oubliette. obama has set himself above the law and takes on the power of assassinating someone based on his word alone. They are not actively engaged in combat, like John Walker (who was tried). They are just killed by virtue of an executive decision judging them to be traitors without a word spoken for or against them.

What can this become?

In your subjective, partisan opinion – which you’re entitled to.

But not as an objective fact of law, as no court has ruled as to the Constitutionally of the policy.

And you and millions of other Americans had your opportunity to act on the policy when you didn’t vote for the president last November.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before obama, how many American citizens were assassinated or executed without a trial? Without being engaged at that moment in combat?

obama has done it four times. How many before him?

If they were traitors engaging in war agains their own country.....not enough of them

If they were traitors that deserves a trial, have them stripped of their citizenship and then do whatever the government wants to do with them. Torture them, put them in front of a firing squad, bring back the oubliette. obama has set himself above the law and takes on the power of assassinating someone based on his word alone. They are not actively engaged in combat, like John Walker (who was tried). They are just killed by virtue of an executive decision judging them to be traitors without a word spoken for or against them.

What can this become?

So if out in Pakistan somewhere, an American al qaeda member is helping plan the next 9/11,

we have to wait until it happens before we can take him out? Or even then, what? We have to send someone to arrest him?

You never fail to come through with idiocy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Civil War would have been quite a challenge for Lincoln and the North to win if he'd only had the power to arrest Confederate combatants.

 

[Katzndogz]

Do we know he is making these plans or did obama just say so?

 

[Dot Com]

If they were traitors engaging in war agains their own country.....not enough of them

If they were traitors that deserves a trial, have them stripped of their citizenship and then do whatever the government wants to do with them. Torture them, put them in front of a firing squad, bring back the oubliette. obama has set himself above the law and takes on the power of assassinating someone based on his word alone. They are not actively engaged in combat, like John Walker (who was tried). They are just killed by virtue of an executive decision judging them to be traitors without a word spoken for or against them.

What can this become?

In your subjective, partisan opinion – which you’re entitled to.

But not as an objective fact of law, as no court has ruled as to the Constitutionally of the policy.

And you and millions of other Americans had your opportunity to act on the policy when you didn’t vote for the president last November.

Katzndogz is too blinded by her zany partisanship to realize that the Presidents policy is to always consider capturing as a 1st option. When the losses of assets to accomplish that are greater than the possible capture then drone strikes are considered. Katzndogz doesn't follow current events very closely does she?

 

[idb]

Nope. She objects because he was an American citizen.
You fail. Again.

Do you ever get tired of being shown to be an ignorant buffoon unable to debate issues?

Dude, the guy was a terrorist. Not seeing the problem here.

Of course, the only problem you see is Obama is succeeding where Bush failed miserably.

Obama murdered an American citizen without due process of law. It has already been established that terrorismis a crime to be dealt with in a court of law. But not for an American citizen. Obama has set a precedent that will cost this country's citizens forever after into the future. Now he wants to use drones on American soil. Obama is what the founding fathers fought against. And you, supposedly a 'rah rah rah freedom' liberal think it is OK to deny American citizens due process of law. It is not, and it has not been since the inception of this country.

It has already been established that terrorismis a crime to be dealt with in a court of law.

So you agree that all those prisoners (over 100 from memory) in Guantanamo that have been cleared for release should be let go immediately?
Presumably the rest should be brought to the States and tried in a court of law.
Hooray, Gitmo closed...easy!