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

[Foxfyre]

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.

So it's a balancing act. Good people do not rejoice in the death of anybody and I think most Americans did not rejoice in the death of this person any more than good people cheer and celebrate when a convicted felon in this country receives the ultimate consequence for their crime against society and are put to death.

But if somebody is plotting, organizing, and orchestrating the death of American citizens and/or our allies, shall we wait for the courts--the courts who cannot reach them of course--to act? Or protect the people who will die if this person continues to live without any restraints? I am profoundly grateful that I do not have to make a call like that. But I appreciate that a President sometimes does have to make a call like that and in most cases, I choose not to second guess him.

 

[Liability]

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.

The gubmint sure as shit DOES need something to deem me a terrorist.

I personally saw some of the evidence of what al-Awlaki had done. Fuck him. He was the enemy and I am glad he's fucking dead.

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Nobody could report me for these posts since nothing I have EVER written so much as implies a belief that we should take up arms against the government of our Republic.

Show me ANY "legislation" or other law that permits the kind of stuff you are suggesting.

 

[occupied]

I have never shed a tear over any terrorist scum getting blasted into atoms no matter the circumstances. It's pretty simple to avoid becoming a target, don't hide in third world shit holes and try to blow people up, simple. If the day ever comes that Americans are targeted with elimination rather than arrest in their own country it will be a republican that does it.

 

[Liability]

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.

So it's a balancing act. Good people do not rejoice in the death of anybody and I think most Americans did not rejoice in the death of this person any more than good people cheer and celebrate when a convicted felon in this country receives the ultimate consequence for their crime against society and are put to death.

But if somebody is plotting, organizing, and orchestrating the death of American citizens and/or our allies, shall we wait for the courts--the courts who cannot reach them of course--to act? Or protect the people who will die if this person continues to live without any restraints? I am profoundly grateful that I do not have to make a call like that. But I appreciate that a President sometimes does have to make a call like that and in most cases, I choose not to second guess him.

We discuss these matters rather openly in our Republic. It is fodder for legitimate debate. Even though I do disagree with bigreb on this issue, I absolutely do appreciate his concerns. He sets up the difficulty of the problem very articulately.

Still, though, the fact that we are discussing it tells us something about the Republic we are part of. I am very willing to bet that such things have happened long before there ever was a 9/11/2001. I also think the use of such awesome powers SHOULD be used most sparingly. But, as was the case with al-Awlaki, sometimes there simply is no actual question.

And there is (or ought to be) a mechanism for review. In fact, I believe there is. The President doesn't make random decisions on these maters. There is intel, there is review. There is all manner of confirmation. And I also endorse Congressional oversight (even if only after the fact).

 

[Liability]

I have never shed a tear over any terrorist scum getting blasted into atoms no matter the circumstances. It's pretty simple to avoid becoming a target, don't hide in third world shit holes and try to blow people up, simple. If the day ever comes that Americans are targeted with elimination rather than arrest in their own country it will be a republican that does it.

If an American citizen on U.S. soil were about to complete the final stages that will result in a terrorist attack on American soil, I am secure knowing (based on his already established behavior) that even this Democrat Party President would unflinchingly authorize him getting dispatched.

And it is certainly under those dire circumstances that any President, Republican, Democratic, or "other" would ever approve a "sanction" over an arrest.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

So it's a balancing act. Good people do not rejoice in the death of anybody and I think most Americans did not rejoice in the death of this person any more than good people cheer and celebrate when a convicted felon in this country receives the ultimate consequence for their crime against society and are put to death.

But if somebody is plotting, organizing, and orchestrating the death of American citizens and/or our allies, shall we wait for the courts--the courts who cannot reach them of course--to act? Or protect the people who will die if this person continues to live without any restraints? I am profoundly grateful that I do not have to make a call like that. But I appreciate that a President sometimes does have to make a call like that and in most cases, I choose not to second guess him.

I'm actually glad this man is dead, he was getting enough juice and street cred to become the next Osama Bin Laden. You got to take these guys out before they hit their prime and do alot of damage.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The gubmint sure as shit DOES need something to deem me a terrorist.

I personally saw some of the evidence of what al-Awlaki had done. Fuck him. He was the enemy and I am glad he's fucking dead.

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Nobody could report me for these posts since nothing I have EVER written so much as implies a belief that we should take up arms against the government of our Republic.

Show me ANY "legislation" or other law that permits the kind of stuff you are suggesting.

The gubmint sure as shit DOES need something to deem me a terrorist.

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

The gubmint sure as shit DOES need something to deem me a terrorist.

I personally saw some of the evidence of what al-Awlaki had done. Fuck him. He was the enemy and I am glad he's fucking dead.

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Nobody could report me for these posts since nothing I have EVER written so much as implies a belief that we should take up arms against the government of our Republic.

Show me ANY "legislation" or other law that permits the kind of stuff you are suggesting.

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

 

[Liability]

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.

The gubmint sure as shit DOES need something to deem me a terrorist.

I personally saw some of the evidence of what al-Awlaki had done. Fuck him. He was the enemy and I am glad he's fucking dead.

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Nobody could report me for these posts since nothing I have EVER written so much as implies a belief that we should take up arms against the government of our Republic.

Show me ANY "legislation" or other law that permits the kind of stuff you are suggesting.

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

The evidence that is needed is the evidence that leads to the decision.

We are not talking about subjecting such evidence to cross examination. That is court-room stuff, but does not pertain here.

Still, evidence can be evidence even outside of a court room setting.

As for what the President might consider evidence of me (or anybody else) being a "terrorist," your hypothetical is self-defeating. For you are suggesting that a President MIGHT (conceivably) wander off the Rez. That's true, but it could happen today, anyway, in a whole array of areas. One need not use FISA to plant a bug if one is willing to ignore the law and due process and morality. No law stops anybody from violating that law if he or she is bent on committing the conduct.

And no. Due process should not trump anything where due process does not even pertain.

The enemy in the sniper's gun-sights might not be a willing participant in the war against the United States. Do we say, "wait. don't shoot him because we didn't give that man a presumption of innocence?" Nope. He gets shot. End of discussion.

Similarly, the nationality of the enemy is not a factor. The guy on the other side of a war directed against us is the enemy regardless of his being Iranian, Syrian, Chinese, Russian, Egyptian, Scandinavian OR American.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The gubmint sure as shit DOES need something to deem me a terrorist.

I personally saw some of the evidence of what al-Awlaki had done. Fuck him. He was the enemy and I am glad he's fucking dead.

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Nobody could report me for these posts since nothing I have EVER written so much as implies a belief that we should take up arms against the government of our Republic.

Show me ANY "legislation" or other law that permits the kind of stuff you are suggesting.

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.




Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

How do you know this is it what you heard on the media? Did he have dissent against the government? We only no about him what the media and the government has mentioned about him.

 

[High_Gravity]

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.




Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?


If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

How do you know this is it what you heard on the media? Did he have dissent against the government? We only no about him what the media and the government has mentioned about him.

You have obviously never watched this mans videos or heard his speeches, I suggest you do, he was not shy about what he stood for or what his intentions were.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The gubmint sure as shit DOES need something to deem me a terrorist.

I personally saw some of the evidence of what al-Awlaki had done. Fuck him. He was the enemy and I am glad he's fucking dead.

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

And no. It is emphatically NOT true that anyone expressing political dissent could be deemed a terrorist.

Nobody could report me for these posts since nothing I have EVER written so much as implies a belief that we should take up arms against the government of our Republic.

Show me ANY "legislation" or other law that permits the kind of stuff you are suggesting.

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.




Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?

Due process was not an issue in his case anymore than it would be in the case of some uniformed enemy in one of our sniper's gun-sights.

If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

The evidence that is needed is the evidence that leads to the decision.

We are not talking about subjecting such evidence to cross examination. That is court-room stuff, but does not pertain here.

Still, evidence can be evidence even outside of a court room setting.

As for what the President might consider evidence of me (or anybody else) being a "terrorist," your hypothetical is self-defeating. For you are suggesting that a President MIGHT (conceivably) wander off the Rez. That's true, but it could happen today, anyway, in a whole array of areas. One need not use FISA to plant a bug if one is willing to ignore the law and due process and morality. No law stops anybody from violating that law if he or she is bent on committing the conduct.

And no. Due process should not trump anything where due process does not even pertain.

The enemy in the sniper's gun-sights might not be a willing participant in the war against the United States. Do we say, "wait. don't shoot him because we didn't give that man a presumption of innocence?" Nope. He gets shot. End of discussion.

Similarly, the nationality of the enemy is not a factor. The guy on the other side of a war directed against us is the enemy regardless of his being Iranian, Syrian, Chinese, Russian, Egyptian, Scandinavian OR American.

The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

I suggest you look at that section 1031 again and show me where you get a day in court.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

How do you know this is it what you heard on the media? Did he have dissent against the government? We only no about him what the media and the government has mentioned about him.

You have obviously never watched this mans videos or heard his speeches, I suggest you do, he was not shy about what he stood for or what his intentions were.

who had his video's to show you?

 

[Liability]

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.




Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?


If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

The evidence that is needed is the evidence that leads to the decision.

We are not talking about subjecting such evidence to cross examination. That is court-room stuff, but does not pertain here.

Still, evidence can be evidence even outside of a court room setting.

As for what the President might consider evidence of me (or anybody else) being a "terrorist," your hypothetical is self-defeating. For you are suggesting that a President MIGHT (conceivably) wander off the Rez. That's true, but it could happen today, anyway, in a whole array of areas. One need not use FISA to plant a bug if one is willing to ignore the law and due process and morality. No law stops anybody from violating that law if he or she is bent on committing the conduct.

And no. Due process should not trump anything where due process does not even pertain.

The enemy in the sniper's gun-sights might not be a willing participant in the war against the United States. Do we say, "wait. don't shoot him because we didn't give that man a presumption of innocence?" Nope. He gets shot. End of discussion.

Similarly, the nationality of the enemy is not a factor. The guy on the other side of a war directed against us is the enemy regardless of his being Iranian, Syrian, Chinese, Russian, Egyptian, Scandinavian OR American.

The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

I suggest you look at that section 1031 again and show me where you get a day in court.

I suggest you find the post where I said anything about him getting a day in court.



Good luck. You'll need it.

 

[Foxfyre]

No it doesn't because you do not get a day in court and can be held without a day in court. So who would the president need to go to, too deem you a terrorist? He doesn't have too.




Are you sure of that, and are you sure the next president will not add to it?


If he is a citizen of the U.S. due process should always trump any legislative action.

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

How do you know this is it what you heard on the media? Did he have dissent against the government? We only no about him what the media and the government has mentioned about him.

And one of the most grevious crimes that anyone can commit in this country is treason. If your fellow countrymen put on the enemies' uniform and take up arms against their fellow citizens, would not not feel justified in shooting them? What if one is plotting to destroy the USA and all the 'infidels' in it as Anwar-al-Awlaki was doing--as HG said, all you have to do is read and listen to his own words--and organizing mayhem against American peace keeping troops? Do you just look the other way?

This is not the usual situation. It is not targeting someone for dissent or objection to government or anything else about the USA. It is not targeting somebody for simply breaking the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

The evidence that is needed is the evidence that leads to the decision.

We are not talking about subjecting such evidence to cross examination. That is court-room stuff, but does not pertain here.

Still, evidence can be evidence even outside of a court room setting.

As for what the President might consider evidence of me (or anybody else) being a "terrorist," your hypothetical is self-defeating. For you are suggesting that a President MIGHT (conceivably) wander off the Rez. That's true, but it could happen today, anyway, in a whole array of areas. One need not use FISA to plant a bug if one is willing to ignore the law and due process and morality. No law stops anybody from violating that law if he or she is bent on committing the conduct.

And no. Due process should not trump anything where due process does not even pertain.

The enemy in the sniper's gun-sights might not be a willing participant in the war against the United States. Do we say, "wait. don't shoot him because we didn't give that man a presumption of innocence?" Nope. He gets shot. End of discussion.

Similarly, the nationality of the enemy is not a factor. The guy on the other side of a war directed against us is the enemy regardless of his being Iranian, Syrian, Chinese, Russian, Egyptian, Scandinavian OR American.

The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

I suggest you look at that section 1031 again and show me where you get a day in court.

I suggest you find the post where I said anything about him getting a day in court.



Good luck. You'll need it.

Quote:
The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

Look at your post.

 

[Liability]

I suggest you look at that section 1031 again and show me where you get a day in court.

I suggest you find the post where I said anything about him getting a day in court.



Good luck. You'll need it.

Quote:
The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

Look at your post.

Look at it? I wrote it. And I said NOTHING suggesting that the dead guy gets a day in court. I said your ARGUMENT is a fallacy.

Reading comprehension problem here...and the problem is entirely yours.

 

[High_Gravity]

How do you know this is it what you heard on the media? Did he have dissent against the government? We only no about him what the media and the government has mentioned about him.

You have obviously never watched this mans videos or heard his speeches, I suggest you do, he was not shy about what he stood for or what his intentions were.

who had his video's to show you?

Go ahead and google Anwar Al-Awlaki, you will see various videos and speeches from him, I suggest you read up and learn more about this man that you are defending.

 

[Liability]

It's a fucking typo, ****

Twice in the same post?

"Lighten up, Francis."

yes twice.

Been there. Done that.

Because ANYBODY can make a typo once.

It takes DEDICATION to make the same one, twice.

(My posts would be unreadable but-for spell check.)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

How do you know this is it what you heard on the media? Did he have dissent against the government? We only no about him what the media and the government has mentioned about him.

And one of the most grevious crimes that anyone can commit in this country is treason. If your fellow countrymen put on the enemies' uniform and take up arms against their fellow citizens, would not not feel justified in shooting them? What if one is plotting to destroy the USA and all the 'infidels' in it as Anwar-al-Awlaki was doing--as HG said, all you have to do is read and listen to his own words--and organizing mayhem against American peace keeping troops? Do you just look the other way?

This is not the usual situation. It is not targeting someone for dissent or objection to government or anything else about the USA. It is not targeting somebody for simply breaking the law.

And one of the most grevious crimes that anyone can commit in this country is treason.

I agree but when you accuse someone do it according to the law. not some new dictatorial new law. The one with due process. If a person is planning an attack you capture him if you can if he resist by law you are authorized to kill him. It's a most grevious crime to supersede the constitution wouldn't you agree?