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.
Is the killing a 16 year old simply because of who his father was what the Democrats and Liberals consider part of "American Traditions"?
Oh please give us the intel you recieved that shows that the young man was completely innocent of being involved in terror.
Whatta pile of Pub hypocrisy. These are self professed senior terrorists. Mindless BS opposition from the hATER DUPES...
I think all that does is create more terrorists.
I don't think it matters at all. It's the culture over there that creates more terrorists. This kind of killing, hatred, and religious fanaticism has been going on over there for centuries.
No. It is not created by the culture. Their culture no more creates terrorists than our culture does. What creates terrorists is the feeling that terrorism is the only method available to someone to fight back what they see as injustice. If the situation were reversed, you would see it as injustice as well.
The europeans (and us) have been using the middle east as a battlefield and resource for two centuries. We have consistently treated them as third class citizens in their own land. We have sent in troops, destroyed ways of life, created entire nations for our own convenience and toppled democratically elected governments. And we have the temerity to wonder why they don't like us? Fanaticism arises from chaos, not culture, and much of that chaos we caused. Causing even more chaos is not going to solve the problem.
(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.
The President has the authority to kill anyone in Al Qaeda, or affiliated with Al Qaeda,
since Al Qaeda is an 'organization' as described above.
Being an American Al Qaeda is not a hall pass.
I see you can't read. The memo actually says that an high official in the executive branch has the power to kill anyone they suspect is a member of Al Qaeda, or any organization associated with them, even if they have no proof. This power is not limited to the president, nor dies it require actual evidence, all it requires is someone to say go.
And?
Was this something you were against when the AUMF was enacted?
I don'tFor those here who have conveniently forgotten that Obama ordered a separate attack that killed a 16 year old American citizen simply because he didn't like his father, who was already dead, let me remind them with this article.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The AtlanticHow does Team Obama justify killing him?
The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.
GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
I don't belive the kid was the target to be called an assination. Wrong place at the wrong time.
How many bombs did Bush drop on Iraq who was not a threat, had no WMDs that killed a million innocent Iraqi men, women and children. We are at war with Al Qaeda and there are casualties of war.
(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.
The President has the authority to kill anyone in Al Qaeda, or affiliated with Al Qaeda,
since Al Qaeda is an 'organization' as described above.
Being an American Al Qaeda is not a hall pass.
I see you can't read. The memo actually says that an high official in the executive branch has the power to kill anyone they suspect is a member of Al Qaeda, or any organization associated with them, even if they have no proof. This power is not limited to the president, nor dies it require actual evidence, all it requires is someone to say go.
You obviously haven't read the white paper. This would be what? ...the second time in 2 weeks you pretended to be knowledgeable about something you haven't even read?
lol
The constitutional authority to kill an American who has joined forces with the enemy is cited in the white paper which you didn't read.
{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. }
From the actual constitution, which you have never read.
Your dictator violated the constitution AND criminal law. Impeach, indict, imprison.
Due process means the state has to respect the rights that you possess.
Once you've joined forces with an enemy of the US that Congress has authorized the use of force against,
you no longer possess all the rights you mistakenly think you do.
Due process means the state has to respect the rights that you possess.
Not a particularly accurate definition, but even with that, Obama denied due process when he ordered the assassination of American citizens.
You've joined forces with the enemy. You spend your days here arguing against constitutional government and advocating for a totalitarian system.Once you've joined forces with an enemy of the US that Congress has authorized the use of force against,
you no longer possess all the rights you mistakenly think you do.
Does that mean that the next Republican president would be right to order you killed on the spot?
Just like you, Al-Awliki was a demagogue. He put out propaganda and incited ant-American hatred. There is no evidence he ever fired a shot at Americans, engaged in any terrorist act, or did anything other than make videos.
Bullshit.
He was involved in several plots including the mass shooting at fort hood and the attempted bombing of times square.
Anwar al-Awlaki?s Suspected Ties to Terror Plots - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
If he was "innocent" he never should have left the US and turned himself over to authorities.
For those here who have conveniently forgotten that Obama ordered a separate attack that killed a 16 year old American citizen simply because he didn't like his father, who was already dead, let me remind them with this article.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
Gibbs is right and you are wrong.
QWB, you are defending terrorists and terrorism.
Let me see if I understand your position.
Because I oppose using drones that kill people on our side of the argument who are speaking out against terrorism and radical Islamism that means I support terrorism and radical Islam.
Gotta admit it takes a FakeStarkey to say that without smashing the computer keyboard in a bout of self immolation.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.
U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes
I see you can't read. The memo actually says that an high official in the executive branch has the power to kill anyone they suspect is a member of Al Qaeda, or any organization associated with them, even if they have no proof. This power is not limited to the president, nor dies it require actual evidence, all it requires is someone to say go.
You obviously haven't read the white paper. This would be what? ...the second time in 2 weeks you pretended to be knowledgeable about something you haven't even read?
lol
Feel free to cite the paragraph in the paper that proves me wrong.
Here is a link to make it easier for you.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Al Qaeda is a trans-national non-state actor in this conflict.
Got it, so the "war zone" meme fails, onto the next leftist yapping point...
Fact, Obama violated the United States Constitution.
Fact, you don't don't care; you have no particular love of the Constitution and care ONLY about promoting your shameful party.
And this is what it comes down to with you folks.
It's the person you don't like..not the the underlying powers.
Which is why having a discussion with you folks is pretty impossible.
Hyperbole and bullshit. That's your bag o tricks.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.
U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes
That is all it should take to prove to you that Obama is wrong.
Whats the problem? I've known that America has been eliminating "Americans", since I was 17 years old, and on my 1st tour in Vietnam. If you think about it, the government was eliminating Americans in the Revolution... Before and After the Constitution was written.
For all of the bluster about "rights"... The rights end when one becomes a traitor to the nation.
But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.
Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.
The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.
The question, therefore, isnt a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted and we likely never will have such a ruling.
Whats the problem? I've known that America has been eliminating "Americans", since I was 17 years old, and on my 1st tour in Vietnam. If you think about it, the government was eliminating Americans in the Revolution... Before and After the Constitution was written.
For all of the bluster about "rights"... The rights end when one becomes a traitor to the nation.
But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.
Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.
The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.
The question, therefore, isnt a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted and we likely never will have such a ruling.
You are the guy that says the Supreme Court is the final say on the Constitution, feel free to cite any case where they said due process does not involve the judicial branch.
Gibbs is right and you are wrong.
QWB, you are defending terrorists and terrorism.
Let me see if I understand your position.
Because I oppose using drones that kill people on our side of the argument who are speaking out against terrorism and radical Islamism that means I support terrorism and radical Islam.
Gotta admit it takes a FakeStarkey to say that without smashing the computer keyboard in a bout of self immolation.
The truth is harsh on you, QWB. No one said that you support terrorism here or that being anti-government is terrorist. But you do support terrorism if you argue that the government is wrong to use drones against those who put themselves beyond the reach of the normal avenues of US justice. Yes, such folks are drone feed.
"Due process" has ZERO to do with it. Due process is applicable to lots of things, but NOT enemies in time of war.
You obviously haven't read the white paper. This would be what? ...the second time in 2 weeks you pretended to be knowledgeable about something you haven't even read?
lol
Feel free to cite the paragraph in the paper that proves me wrong.
Here is a link to make it easier for you.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Never thought I'd live to see the day, when a libertarian would referenced MSNBC.
