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

[bigrebnc1775]

I can understand where these thoughts are coming from. It is possible someone without the integrity we would hope our president would have could be making thise decision.

Perhaps the Patriot Act could be usefuil in adding language that would insure that it would be more than one person to declare an American citizen a great threat to our nation that his death, if found should be immediate. The Secretary of Defense, Secret Service, CIA may qualify, but should be three people involved.

From what I understand Obama authorized this....which means that the intelligence and military requested it. As CIC, the president has this power. You don't water down the president's power simply because you don't like him.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking him..I voted for him and he is still very wrong. So you think the president has the right to order the assasination of citizens? Interesting. Simply because he is the CIC does not give him a license to kill.


For the comment about bin Laden being in bed...Bin Laden was not ordered assasinated he was ordered captured. They killed him because he was armed. Also, Bin Laden is NOT a US citizen which makes these two situations very different.

Plus in 2003 th superme court ruled that even though a U.S. citizen was deemed an enemy combatant they still was protected by the fifth amendment and due process.

Libiaty you have knowledge of the judical system you know that information is worthless unless it's submitted in a court of law, it's hearsay tapes can be altered to make it look and sound different then what was originally said, only an expert swron under oath in front of a judge can determin that.

Come on. Don't get silly. Outside of the judicial system, information is gathered and USED all the damn time. Information is not only quite wholly useful even when never submitted to the judicial system, but that is the norm for society. Submission of information TO the judicial system is outside the norm.

This has almost been ALWAYS true for military intel. If our spy in the sky cameras see a facility under construction, or an amassing array of tanks or rocket launchers, they NEVER go to Court for "mother may I?" permission to use that intel. They ACT on it without ever even contemplating going to Court. That is as it should be.

You persist in misusing the term "hearsay." For use in Court (like a criminal proceeding) it is OFTEN true (but not always true) that statements made outside of Court cannot b e offered into evidence at trial for the truth of the matter being asserted. But if, outside of Court, a defendant happens to have said, "Yeah, I killed her. I'm GLAD I killed her. Give me a chance and I'll kill her fucking DOG, too. And I'll shoot that bitch right between the eyes just like I killed the other bitch!" then it CAN be introduced into evidence against the accused. The objection "HEARSAY" would be laughed out of Court.

And you know what else? It could serve as a basis for a perfectly valid (rock solid) conviction, too.

IF unsworn out of court statements CAN sometimes be validly used as evidence IN a criminal trial, then what makes you think that intel can't be used outside of Court for its military purposes?

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway. When the asshole made tapes, playing those tapes is not "hearsay." It's solid evidence.

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[Intense]

From what I understand Obama authorized this....which means that the intelligence and military requested it. As CIC, the president has this power. You don't water down the president's power simply because you don't like him.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking him..I voted for him and he is still very wrong. So you think the president has the right to order the assasination of citizens? Interesting. Simply because he is the CIC does not give him a license to kill.


For the comment about bin Laden being in bed...Bin Laden was not ordered assasinated he was ordered captured. They killed him because he was armed. Also, Bin Laden is NOT a US citizen which makes these two situations very different.

Plus in 2003 th superme court ruled that even though a U.S. citizen was deemed an enemy combatant they still was protected by the fifth amendment and due process.

Come on. Don't get silly. Outside of the judicial system, information is gathered and USED all the damn time. Information is not only quite wholly useful even when never submitted to the judicial system, but that is the norm for society. Submission of information TO the judicial system is outside the norm.

This has almost been ALWAYS true for military intel. If our spy in the sky cameras see a facility under construction, or an amassing array of tanks or rocket launchers, they NEVER go to Court for "mother may I?" permission to use that intel. They ACT on it without ever even contemplating going to Court. That is as it should be.

You persist in misusing the term "hearsay." For use in Court (like a criminal proceeding) it is OFTEN true (but not always true) that statements made outside of Court cannot b e offered into evidence at trial for the truth of the matter being asserted. But if, outside of Court, a defendant happens to have said, "Yeah, I killed her. I'm GLAD I killed her. Give me a chance and I'll kill her fucking DOG, too. And I'll shoot that bitch right between the eyes just like I killed the other bitch!" then it CAN be introduced into evidence against the accused. The objection "HEARSAY" would be laughed out of Court.

And you know what else? It could serve as a basis for a perfectly valid (rock solid) conviction, too.

IF unsworn out of court statements CAN sometimes be validly used as evidence IN a criminal trial, then what makes you think that intel can't be used outside of Court for its military purposes?

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway. When the asshole made tapes, playing those tapes is not "hearsay." It's solid evidence.

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

That is the Norm, but there are Loop Holes and Special Circumstances that We may not be Privy to. Don't dismiss that so easily. Not all of the cards are on the table.

 

[geauxtohell]

Libiaty you have knowledge of the judical system you know that information is worthless unless it's submitted in a court of law, it's hearsay tapes can be altered to make it look and sound different then what was originally said, only an expert swron under oath in front of a judge can determin that.

Come on. Don't get silly. Outside of the judicial system, information is gathered and USED all the damn time. Information is not only quite wholly useful even when never submitted to the judicial system, but that is the norm for society. Submission of information TO the judicial system is outside the norm.

This has almost been ALWAYS true for military intel. If our spy in the sky cameras see a facility under construction, or an amassing array of tanks or rocket launchers, they NEVER go to Court for "mother may I?" permission to use that intel. They ACT on it without ever even contemplating going to Court. That is as it should be.

You persist in misusing the term "hearsay." For use in Court (like a criminal proceeding) it is OFTEN true (but not always true) that statements made outside of Court cannot b e offered into evidence at trial for the truth of the matter being asserted. But if, outside of Court, a defendant happens to have said, "Yeah, I killed her. I'm GLAD I killed her. Give me a chance and I'll kill her fucking DOG, too. And I'll shoot that bitch right between the eyes just like I killed the other bitch!" then it CAN be introduced into evidence against the accused. The objection "HEARSAY" would be laughed out of Court.

And you know what else? It could serve as a basis for a perfectly valid (rock solid) conviction, too.

IF unsworn out of court statements CAN sometimes be validly used as evidence IN a criminal trial, then what makes you think that intel can't be used outside of Court for its military purposes?

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway. When the asshole made tapes, playing those tapes is not "hearsay." It's solid evidence.

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Hamdi was detained. This was a ruling on due process.

Awlaki was never detained. This was not a "due process" issue. Perhaps it was in "illegal seizure" or a violation of his civil rights, but he wasn't being held without access to a speedy trial and just representation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Come on. Don't get silly. Outside of the judicial system, information is gathered and USED all the damn time. Information is not only quite wholly useful even when never submitted to the judicial system, but that is the norm for society. Submission of information TO the judicial system is outside the norm.

This has almost been ALWAYS true for military intel. If our spy in the sky cameras see a facility under construction, or an amassing array of tanks or rocket launchers, they NEVER go to Court for "mother may I?" permission to use that intel. They ACT on it without ever even contemplating going to Court. That is as it should be.

You persist in misusing the term "hearsay." For use in Court (like a criminal proceeding) it is OFTEN true (but not always true) that statements made outside of Court cannot b e offered into evidence at trial for the truth of the matter being asserted. But if, outside of Court, a defendant happens to have said, "Yeah, I killed her. I'm GLAD I killed her. Give me a chance and I'll kill her fucking DOG, too. And I'll shoot that bitch right between the eyes just like I killed the other bitch!" then it CAN be introduced into evidence against the accused. The objection "HEARSAY" would be laughed out of Court.

And you know what else? It could serve as a basis for a perfectly valid (rock solid) conviction, too.

IF unsworn out of court statements CAN sometimes be validly used as evidence IN a criminal trial, then what makes you think that intel can't be used outside of Court for its military purposes?

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway. When the asshole made tapes, playing those tapes is not "hearsay." It's solid evidence.

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Hamdi was detained. This was a ruling on due process.

Awlaki was never detained. This was not a "due process" issue. Perhaps it was in "illegal seizure" or a violation of his civil rights, but he wasn't being held without access to a speedy trial and just representation.

Yes it was about due process
We have a war on drugs and the LA street gangs have also been deemed terrorist should they also be shot on sight?

 

[Sunshine]

Come on. Don't get silly. Outside of the judicial system, information is gathered and USED all the damn time. Information is not only quite wholly useful even when never submitted to the judicial system, but that is the norm for society. Submission of information TO the judicial system is outside the norm.

This has almost been ALWAYS true for military intel. If our spy in the sky cameras see a facility under construction, or an amassing array of tanks or rocket launchers, they NEVER go to Court for "mother may I?" permission to use that intel. They ACT on it without ever even contemplating going to Court. That is as it should be.

You persist in misusing the term "hearsay." For use in Court (like a criminal proceeding) it is OFTEN true (but not always true) that statements made outside of Court cannot b e offered into evidence at trial for the truth of the matter being asserted. But if, outside of Court, a defendant happens to have said, "Yeah, I killed her. I'm GLAD I killed her. Give me a chance and I'll kill her fucking DOG, too. And I'll shoot that bitch right between the eyes just like I killed the other bitch!" then it CAN be introduced into evidence against the accused. The objection "HEARSAY" would be laughed out of Court.

And you know what else? It could serve as a basis for a perfectly valid (rock solid) conviction, too.

IF unsworn out of court statements CAN sometimes be validly used as evidence IN a criminal trial, then what makes you think that intel can't be used outside of Court for its military purposes?

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway. When the asshole made tapes, playing those tapes is not "hearsay." It's solid evidence.

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Hamdi was detained. This was a ruling on due process.

Awlaki was never detained. This was not a "due process" issue. Perhaps it was in "illegal seizure" or a violation of his civil rights, but he wasn't being held without access to a speedy trial and just representation.

Due process is more broad than that:

due process
n.
An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.

due process - definition of due process by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Hamdi was detained. This was a ruling on due process.

Awlaki was never detained. This was not a "due process" issue. Perhaps it was in "illegal seizure" or a violation of his civil rights, but he wasn't being held without access to a speedy trial and just representation.

Due process is more broad than that:

due process
n.
An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.

due process - definition of due process by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Thjank you

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking him..I voted for him and he is still very wrong. So you think the president has the right to order the assasination of citizens? Interesting. Simply because he is the CIC does not give him a license to kill.


For the comment about bin Laden being in bed...Bin Laden was not ordered assasinated he was ordered captured. They killed him because he was armed. Also, Bin Laden is NOT a US citizen which makes these two situations very different.

Plus in 2003 th superme court ruled that even though a U.S. citizen was deemed an enemy combatant they still was protected by the fifth amendment and due process.

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

That is the Norm, but there are Loop Holes and Special Circumstances that We may not be Privy to. Don't dismiss that so easily. Not all of the cards are on the table.

Damn the Special Circumstances no way should it over ride an individual's right.

 

[Sunshine]

Hamdi was detained. This was a ruling on due process.

Awlaki was never detained. This was not a "due process" issue. Perhaps it was in "illegal seizure" or a violation of his civil rights, but he wasn't being held without access to a speedy trial and just representation.

Due process is more broad than that:

due process
n.
An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.

due process - definition of due process by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Thjank you

Yeah. I am reminded of a time a while back when we got The Patriot Act. I really kind of thought that if you hadn't done anything wrong, you wouldn't have to worry. NOW, when I am in an airport I am a prime terror suspect - little short, fat, white, redheaded, sick, and crippled me! Well, it comes home to us all at one time or another. And I am a prime terror suspect BECAUSE I was crippled and had to have joint replacements. I have to wonde what they will do if I ever have to travel with a continuous infusion medication pump.

 

[Xchel]

The Patriot Act was also invalidated in huge part by US Supreme Court..do not forget and the Patriot Act went way beyond and was probably one of our most embarrassing moments in history because we became a police state instead of free.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Patriot Act was also invalidated in huge part by US Supreme Court..do not forget and the Patriot Act went way beyond and was probably one of our most embarrassing moments in history because we became a police state instead of free.

I keep waiting for obama to keep his word and repeal it. Hell I may even start to support him if he would.

 

[geauxtohell]

Due process is more broad than that:

due process
n.
An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.

due process - definition of due process by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Was Garner denied his due process rights when he was shot by the Memphis Police?

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit's determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.

The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

Final holding written by White.

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Obviously, it's not a completely analogous situation.

Again, 5th Amendment, 4th Amendment, or civil rights. I am sure a legal case will be formed around this. I am curious to see what actually happens. Since the federal government is the culpable agent, I suspect they will argue that Awlaki's Civil Rights were violated.

BTW, the 5th Amendment:

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 offense 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.

Is the deprivation of "life" when police shoot suspects a deprivation of their due process rights, an illegal seizure, or something else? I wonder if the 5th amendment used the term "life" to refer to the death penalty as applied by the state.

 

[High_Gravity]

Lets all storm the white house and protest for poor Anwar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lets all storm the white house and protest for poor Anwar.

It could happen to you

 

[High_Gravity]

Lets all storm the white house and protest for poor Anwar.

It could happen to you

How?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lets all storm the white house and protest for poor Anwar.

It could happen to you

How?

WITH WHAT OBAMA DID DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK?
My suggestion is lay low and keep your mouth shut, don't bring attention to yourself, you may be luck and no one will notice you. As for me I don't give a shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Govt was incompetent from the BEGINNING of our acquaintance with Al Awlaki. He was identified in the 9.11 report as being a common contact for 3 of the hijackers -- yet he was INVITED to speak at a Pentagon Luncheon whilst under investigation by the FBI.. The FBI later unexplainedly DROPPED a warrant for his arrest on felony charges of lying on Soc Sec app to get College funding. WHY? He would have been put away back in 2004!!!

We cannot depend on personal decisions from a Prez or any other individual to NAME the enemy.. It has to be a formal declaration from Congress that we consider an entire ORGANIZATION as a combative enemy.

Declare hostilities -- name the combatants -- then instruct our military and law enforcement to take them out..

Do NOT allow an incompetent, bumbling govt that gives VISA renewals to Mohammed Attah AFTER he brings down the WTC -- to just "wing it". Not as hard as you think to get a laser target designator put on YOUR chest by mistake or incompetence..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lets all storm the white house and protest for poor Anwar.

It could happen to you

How?

Afterall you are saying strom the white house. A fiend of mine knew some people who talked about stroming the white house back in 2010 secert service was asking him what he knew about it a few days later. He told them nothing and called their bluff.

 

[High_Gravity]

It could happen to you

How?

Afterall you are saying strom the white house. A fiend of mine knew some people who talked about stroming the white house back in 2010 secert service was asking him what he knew about it a few days later. He told them nothing and called their bluff.

Shit, should I delete my post?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How?

Afterall you are saying strom the white house. A fiend of mine knew some people who talked about stroming the white house back in 2010 secert service was asking him what he knew about it a few days later. He told them nothing and called their bluff.

Shit, should I delete my post?

A scared bunny would

 

[High_Gravity]

Afterall you are saying strom the white house. A fiend of mine knew some people who talked about stroming the white house back in 2010 secert service was asking him what he knew about it a few days later. He told them nothing and called their bluff.

Shit, should I delete my post?

A scared bunny would

Is that a challenge?