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

[bigrebnc1775]

Shit, should I delete my post?

A scared bunny would

Is that a challenge?

Did I call you a scared little rabbit? I just made an observation and pointed out that a scared little rabbit would delete their comment, not that it would do any good to delete it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Shit, should I delete my post?

A scared bunny would

Is that a challenge?

Just don't "strom" the White House. Whatever the fuck that is.

 

[jgarden]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

Name one president, past or present, who would have handled the "Anwar al-Awlaki" situation differently?

Name one presidential candidate from the "LET HIM DIE!" Party who has gone on record that he/she would have handled the situation differently?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A scared bunny would

Is that a challenge?

Just don't "strom" the White House. Whatever the fuck that is.

It's a fucking typo, ****

 

[geauxtohell]

Is that a challenge?

Just don't "strom" the White House. Whatever the fuck that is.

It's a fucking typo, ****

Twice in the same post?

"Lighten up, Francis."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just don't "strom" the White House. Whatever the fuck that is.

It's a fucking typo, ****

Twice in the same post?

"Lighten up, Francis."

yes twice.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(War is war and death is death.
Islam has been at war with Western Civilization and Christianity since 723 AD. Their battle tactic has been to assault and assault while winning, but as soon as the West gains the upper hand, its time to call a truce regroup, rearm, refit and begin planning for the next assault. Currently Radical Islam is busy exploiting American's Constitutional freedoms and this era of political correctness to undermine this nation's long time bulwarks against subversion and usurpation in order to overthrow America's Constitutional Government. To grant Constitutional rights to sworn enemies on the battlefield would be the same as giving Mahmoud the keys to Washington DC, releasing Khaleid Sheik Mohammed from Gitmo and telling both of them they won, the males of America are ready to be beheaded)

"A GI in the hills of France takes aim through a rifle scope at a German soldier. Snow cakes the ground and a few bare trees cling to the ground like bony fingers. At the last moment, the German soldier sees his attacker. “Wait,” he cries out in a passable accent, “Ich bin an American citizen.”
The scenario isn’t a particularly implausible one. Any number of Germans did leave to fight on behalf of their country in the first and second world wars. And there was no question of due process on the battlefield. Members of enemy forces who fought against the United States were killed and any precedent set in that regard was set long ago.


Critics of drone attacks call them “assassinations”, but there is no difference whatsoever between a soldier sighting an enemy officer through a computer monitor or a rifle scope. There is also no legal distinction between firing a bullet or dropping a bomb or launching a missile. The nature of the projectile or delivery mechanism matters in the tactical and strategic sense, it doesn’t matter in any other way. War is war and dead is dead...."


Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield

 

[Bosun]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

yak yak yak. i disagree with the way 3000 people were killed on 9-11-2001 by radical islamist fundementalists. you would not know a terrorists if you bumped into him or her and a apology tour event sponsored by some bleeding heart liberals... curse your mustach bro.......

 

[Colin]

A scared bunny would

Is that a challenge?

Just don't "strom" the White House. Whatever the fuck that is.

It's obviously something fiends do.

A fiend of mine knew some people who talked about stroming the white house back in 2010

 

[Liability]

REPOSTED:

I applaud and congratulate President Obama on few things (and far between). NONETHELESS, I congratulate him on the death of Al-Awlaki.

I approve the action and have not one bit of Constitutional problem with it as an alleged violation of the guy's rights.

Once again, therefore, I say, "Good job, Mr. President."

I recognize that many folks whose opinions I respect and whose political views are solidly conservative disagree with me. I understand. But I disagree with them on this one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

REPOSTED:

I applaud and congratulate President Obama on few things (and far between). NONETHELESS, I congratulate him on the death of Al-Awlaki.

I approve the action and have not one bit of Constitutional problem with it as an alleged violation of the guy's rights.

Once again, therefore, I say, "Good job, Mr. President."

I recognize that many folks whose opinions I respect and whose political views are solidly conservative disagree with me. I understand. But I disagree with them on this one.

It's ok until it happens to you but then it will be too late.

 

[High_Gravity]

REPOSTED:

I applaud and congratulate President Obama on few things (and far between). NONETHELESS, I congratulate him on the death of Al-Awlaki.

I approve the action and have not one bit of Constitutional problem with it as an alleged violation of the guy's rights.

Once again, therefore, I say, "Good job, Mr. President."

I recognize that many folks whose opinions I respect and whose political views are solidly conservative disagree with me. I understand. But I disagree with them on this one.

I agree, the world is a much better place with this man dead.

 

[saveliberty]

Hardly Constitutional if you ignore due process.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hardly Constitutional if you ignore due process.

Exactly

 

[Liability]

REPOSTED:

I applaud and congratulate President Obama on few things (and far between). NONETHELESS, I congratulate him on the death of Al-Awlaki.

I approve the action and have not one bit of Constitutional problem with it as an alleged violation of the guy's rights.

Once again, therefore, I say, "Good job, Mr. President."

I recognize that many folks whose opinions I respect and whose political views are solidly conservative disagree with me. I understand. But I disagree with them on this one.

It's ok until it happens to you but then it will be too late.

It is kind of silly to think it would happen to me.

I have never declared war on the United States or espoused any solidarity with those who have and I have never taken any action to assist the prosecution of acts of war against us.

Nor would I.

So, yeah. If it were to "ever" happen to me, I'd say we have some pretty massive problems that go beyond the scope of my agreement with the President in this matter.

 

[Liability]

Hardly Constitutional if you ignore due process.

The basic disconnect is the VERY MUCH MISTAKEN belief that "due process" pertains to the issue.

It simply does not.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hardly Constitutional if you ignore due process.

The basic disconnect is the VERY MUCH MISTAKEN belief that "due process" pertains to the issue.

It simply does not.

I'm still wondering how the US is supposed to give due process to a terrorist hiding in the foothills of Yemen? if he wanted due process he could have surrendered to the US Embassy in Sanna.

 

[Liability]

Hardly Constitutional if you ignore due process.

The basic disconnect is the VERY MUCH MISTAKEN belief that "due process" pertains to the issue.

It simply does not.

I'm still wondering how the US is supposed to give due process to a terrorist hiding in the foothills of Yemen? if he wanted due process he could have surrendered to the US Embassy in Sanna.

Prezacktomundo.

So, it's a good thing, then, that the whole concept of "due process" doesn't even apply in such matters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

REPOSTED:

I applaud and congratulate President Obama on few things (and far between). NONETHELESS, I congratulate him on the death of Al-Awlaki.

I approve the action and have not one bit of Constitutional problem with it as an alleged violation of the guy's rights.

Once again, therefore, I say, "Good job, Mr. President."

I recognize that many folks whose opinions I respect and whose political views are solidly conservative disagree with me. I understand. But I disagree with them on this one.

It's ok until it happens to you but then it will be too late.

It is kind of silly to think it would happen to me.

I have never declared war on the United States or espoused any solidarity with those who have and I have never taken any action to assist the prosecution of acts of war against us.

Nor would I.

So, yeah. If it were to "ever" happen to me, I'd say we have some pretty massive problems that go beyond the scope of my agreement with the President in this matter.

Really Liability think about this does the government have to prove anything to deem you a terrorist with the latest legislative action? Anyone with a political dissent against the government can be deemed a terrorist. Even some of your post here could be used against you by the president if someone reported you.

 

[High_Gravity]

It's ok until it happens to you but then it will be too late.

It is kind of silly to think it would happen to me.

I have never declared war on the United States or espoused any solidarity with those who have and I have never taken any action to assist the prosecution of acts of war against us.

Nor would I.

So, yeah. If it were to "ever" happen to me, I'd say we have some pretty massive problems that go beyond the scope of my agreement with the President in this matter.

Really Liability think about this does the government have to prove anything to deem you a terrorist with the latest legislative action? Anyone with a political dissent against the government can be deemed a terrorist. Even some of your post here could be used against you by the president if someone reported you.

Nonsense, anyone with a computer with internet access can see this guy was a terrorist, he wasn't exactly shy about it. Google his videos on youtube and see for yourself.