Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[Xchel]

Cuba attack Honduras? That would make for an interesting story..I doubt that the US kept them in check as far as that goes...Venezuela? nah Venezuela doesn't stand a chance at invading..have you thought about the land situation and distance from Venezuela? They speak a lot of junk but never do a damn thing..why? Because their ships and tanks would never make it here in the first place. The US has never brought arms to stop anyone from invading Honduras, in fact, there has never been the threat of invasion except when El Salvador and Nicaragua where at each other's throats and we did a pretty good job dealing with that all on our own. In fact, the US threw a wall eyed fit about the way it was handled..now we have ourselves with an interesting situation..the US murders its own citizens in a country it isn't even at war with...nice...and you complained about Honduran soldiers shooting communist Sandanistas when they came into Honduran territory....

Also, I find it interesting that you think Americans and Canadians on Wall Street demanding an overthrow of the government and revolution is ok..but it isn't ok for the other guy because he is in Yemen?

 

[Intense]

Cuba attack Honduras? That would make for an interesting story..I doubt that the US kept them in check as far as that goes...Venezuela? nah Venezuela doesn't stand a chance at invading..have you thought about the land situation and distance from Venezuela? They speak a lot of junk but never do a damn thing..why? Because their ships and tanks would never make it here in the first place. The US has never brought arms to stop anyone from invading Honduras, in fact, there has never been the threat of invasion except when El Salvador and Nicaragua where at each other's throats and we did a pretty good job dealing with that all on our own. In fact, the US threw a wall eyed fit about the way it was handled..now we have ourselves with an interesting situation..the US murders its own citizens in a country it isn't even at war with...nice...and you complained about Honduran soldiers shooting communist Sandanistas when they came into Honduran territory....

Also, I find it interesting that you think Americans and Canadians on Wall Street demanding an overthrow of the government and revolution is ok..but it isn't ok for the other guy because he is in Yemen?

Hey, I didn't complain. Still, tiny as your Country is, you have Heart. How do you hold up against the Cartels? Liberty is a good thing, it is under threat everyday. Central America is no exception.

According to Prensa Latina, Security Minister Oscar Alvarez said that the Sinaloa Cartel and the Zetas have been detected in Ocotepeque, Copan, Colon and Atlantida. The four northern states form much of the Atlantic coastline in Honduras, as well as a large chunk of the border with Guatemala. The Mexicans, Alvarez said, move freely throughout these regions, but rather than seeking to take over areas, the foreign gangs are working through already existing networks of local bosses to increase their presence and expand their operations. Mexican Cartels Expand into Honduras

 

[MikeK]

Suppose that is why we are always at an immenient threat level according to the government system?

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather the citizens, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

We still have the Second Amendment.

What we have are whatever vestiges of that Amendment federal, state and local laws allow us to have. Evidence of this is clearly seen in the increasing volumes of laws and regulations which govern our access to and ownership of firearms.

The existence, the nature and the effect of these volumes, and the precedent of our acceptance of them, makes it clear that if government chose to it could restrict our right to "keep" no firearms other than one single shot .22 rifle and to"bear" that "arm" in a locked box between our homes and whatever federally supervised shooting range we are permitted to use.

Would you deny that the tone and tenor of the existing volumes of gun laws seems headed in that direction?

 

[Intense]

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather the citizens, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

We still have the Second Amendment.

What we have are whatever vestiges of that Amendment federal, state and local laws allow us to have. Evidence of this is clearly seen in the increasing volumes of laws and regulations which govern our access to and ownership of firearms.

The existence, the nature and the effect of these volumes, and the precedent of our acceptance of them, makes it clear that if government chose to it could restrict our right to "keep" no firearms other than one single shot .22 rifle and to"bear" that "arm" in a locked box between our homes and whatever federally supervised shooting range we are permitted to use.

Would you deny that the tone and tenor of the existing volumes of gun laws seems headed in that direction?

No.

 

[The T]

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather the citizens, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

We still have the Second Amendment.

What we have are whatever vestiges of that Amendment federal, state and local laws allow us to have. Evidence of this is clearly seen in the increasing volumes of laws and regulations which govern our access to and ownership of firearms.

The existence, the nature and the effect of these volumes, and the precedent of our acceptance of them, makes it clear that if government chose to it could restrict our right to "keep" no firearms other than one single shot .22 rifle and to"bear" that "arm" in a locked box between our homes and whatever federally supervised shooting range we are permitted to use.

Would you deny that the tone and tenor of the existing volumes of gun laws seems headed in that direction?

Your FIRST mistake is using the terms: "vestiges of that Amendment federal, state and local laws allow us to have."

The Bill Of Rights mean exactly as they are written. The only way to change them is not slowly usurping them by meaningless LAWS, but the repeal process.

Guess what that means?

 

[techieny]

When the Constitution is ignored, terrorists win.

Excellent point!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather the citizens, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

We still have the Second Amendment.

What we have are whatever vestiges of that Amendment federal, state and local laws allow us to have. Evidence of this is clearly seen in the increasing volumes of laws and regulations which govern our access to and ownership of firearms.

The existence, the nature and the effect of these volumes, and the precedent of our acceptance of them, makes it clear that if government chose to it could restrict our right to "keep" no firearms other than one single shot .22 rifle and to"bear" that "arm" in a locked box between our homes and whatever federally supervised shooting range we are permitted to use.

Would you deny that the tone and tenor of the existing volumes of gun laws seems headed in that direction?

OH boy another victim ready to fall to me.

You really don't want to use this as your example against the second amendment do you? Please tell me you were mistaken and have been talking out of your ass.

 

[georgephillip]

No George, I would have preferred at the very least and indictment against this guy and a trial in absentia before we did anything else. We had two years...there was no immenent danger.

The US has been killing innocent Muslims since at least 1991.

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931–6.)"

MMS: Error

Anwar al-Awlaki condemned the terror attacks of 9/11/2001 but quickly came to recognize the much greater terror the US was ramping up for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Yemen.

It may we be the case that the collapse of the US dollar will make it impossible for the Pentagon to continue murdering Muslims on the opposite side of the planet for profit; however, that won't prevent a US invasion and occupation of parts of Mexico (the parts with the oil) in order to end the Fast and Furious violence of drug cartels.

Some are beginning to notice a class war that's been raging for thousands of years.
Maybe a few of its victims will begin fighting back?

 

[The Rabbi]

Did nuking Japan justify saving thousands of lives that would have been lost? Yeah, I think so.

I'm sure he'll say no.

If the "he'll" is directed at me you're wrong. btw, my father-in-law flew 'Billy Mitchell's" in support of the Naval and Marine landings in the Pacific. Before he died he knew what he did was necessary but never felt good about the people - both combatants and civilians - who died while carrying out his missions. There is a toll taken by the victors, notwithstanding the bravado of the Chicken Hawks who post on this message board.

So you agree that the ends can justify the means. Glad we got that out of the way.

 

[Ravi]

But U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the lethal strike was lawful.

"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president," King said.

Al-Awlaki was believed by U.S. authorities to have inspired acts of terrorism against the United States, including a fatal shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the December 25 bombing attempt to bring down an airliner flying to Detroit.

U.S. drone killing of American al-Awlaki prompts legal, moral debate - CNN

It's painful to agree with a rightwinloon!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's painful to agree with a rightwinloon!

It should also give one pause…

 

[Intense]

It's painful to agree with a rightwinloon!

That's Chairman Of The House Homeland Security Committee, rightwinloon!

Right-Win indeed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the lethal strike was lawful.

"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president," King said.

Al-Awlaki was believed by U.S. authorities to have inspired acts of terrorism against the United States, including a fatal shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the December 25 bombing attempt to bring down an airliner flying to Detroit.

U.S. drone killing of American al-Awlaki prompts legal, moral debate - CNN

It's painful to agree with a rightwinloon!

I'm still trying to find out when all this information was presented in a court of law? If anything it's hearsay, until it has been proven in a court of law.

 

[Liability]

When the Constitution is ignored, terrorists win.

Your post would be a more worthwhile contribution to this discussion if you could substantiate the implicit (unstated) contention that the Constitution had been ignored or even violated.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When the Constitution is ignored, terrorists win.

Your post would be a more worthwhile contribution to this discussion if you could substantiate the implicit (unstated) contention that the Constitution had been ignored or even violated.

It has been ignored many times, and it seems as time goes by it's just a gilmer of what it use to be.

 

[MikeK]

But U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the lethal strike was lawful.

"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president," King said.

[...]

Rep. Peter King has the mentality of a blustering street-corner bullshit artist. Anything he says must be taken with a grain of salt.

Unless there is specific authorization it is a clear violation of International Law for an armed aircraft to deliberately enter the airspace of a sovereign nation. Unless we had specific authorization from the government of Yemen, what we did was in fact an act of war.

Consider the response if we did the same thing over Russia? Or China?

I am old enough to remember when America and Americans were liked and respected by most of the world. Today we are despised. Unless this course is reversed the actions of our governments will eventually provoke allied aggression against us. We can only push people around for so long before they react. As the 9/11 attack has clearly demonstrated.

 

[Liability]

But U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the lethal strike was lawful.

"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president," King said.

[...]

Rep. Peter King has the mentality of a blustering street-corner bullshit artist. Anything he says must be taken with a grain of salt.

Unless there is specific authorization it is a clear violation of International Law for an armed aircraft to deliberately enter the airspace of a sovereign nation. Unless we had specific authorization from the government of Yemen, what we did was in fact an act of war.

Consider the response if we did the same thing over Russia? Or China?

I am old enough to remember when America and Americans were liked and respected by most of the world. Today we are despised. Unless this course is reversed the actions of our governments will eventually provoke allied aggression against us. We can only push people around for so long before they react. As the 9/11 attack has clearly demonstrated.

You need to refresh yourself on the authority that was granted BY CONGRESS to fight this war.

When you have managed to do so, you might not sound so silly.

 

[Liability]

When the Constitution is ignored, terrorists win.

Your post would be a more worthwhile contribution to this discussion if you could substantiate the implicit (unstated) contention that the Constitution had been ignored or even violated.

It has been ignored many times, and it seems as time goes by it's just a gilmer of what it use to be.

While the Constitution has been ignored many times and has been watered down by Congressional actions, Executive actions and Court "interpretations," none of that (and not your reply, either) addresses the comment I made to saveliberty.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your post would be a more worthwhile contribution to this discussion if you could substantiate the implicit (unstated) contention that the Constitution had been ignored or even violated.

It has been ignored many times, and it seems as time goes by it's just a gilmer of what it use to be.

While the Constitution has been ignored many times and has been watered down by Congressional actions, Executive actions and Court "interpretations," none of that (and not your reply, either) addresses the comment I made to saveliberty.

It appears that you and I are on the opposit side of this issue it appears that many I have agreed with on different issue are also on the same side as you.. Why must we kill due process to feel good about an illegal action?

 

[The T]

It has been ignored many times, and it seems as time goes by it's just a gilmer of what it use to be.

While the Constitution has been ignored many times and has been watered down by Congressional actions, Executive actions and Court "interpretations," none of that (and not your reply, either) addresses the comment I made to saveliberty.

It appears that you and I are on the opposit side of this issue it appears that many I have agreed with on different issue are also on the same side as you.. Why must we kill due process to feel good about an illegal action?

Just for info sake? Read the Following?

What's the legal process for targeted killings like al-Awlaki's?