PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul critical of Awlaki Killing?



East Coast Bias
10/1/2011, 09:14 AM
What do you guys think about Ron Paul's criticism of the killing of Awlaki? In his words "If Americans are okay with the military killing US citizens without a trial or formal charges then we have a problem." Of course it brings up the whole Guantanimo issue,human rights, the Texas execution of a citizen of Mexico, putting a different face on what this seems to be. If anyone else had put this out there, they would be branded as a flaming liberal.I think you have to respect his convictions and devotion to libertarian principals, it took a lot of courage to say what he said.......

jk the sooner fan
10/1/2011, 09:18 AM
and this is another reason why he'll never be elected

GrapevineSooner
10/1/2011, 09:46 AM
At least nobody can accuse him of being a principles over politics guy like just about everyone else.

And yes, this does create quite a a conundrum for all those ardent death penalty opponents.

OUHOMER
10/1/2011, 10:12 AM
He may be wrong on NOt having formal charges aginst him. I dont know, but i thought he did.

Breadburner
10/1/2011, 10:45 AM
Terrorist enemies of the US born here or not need to be eliminated.......RP should pull his head out.....

OhU1
10/1/2011, 12:38 PM
RP is a "throw the baby out with the bath water" type politician. An easy line of rap when you know you have no shot at being President anyway.

JohnnyMack
10/1/2011, 03:12 PM
You may not agree with his opinions, but at least he's got a set of principles he adheres to.

jk the sooner fan
10/1/2011, 03:45 PM
You may not agree with his opinions, but at least he's got a set of principles he adheres to.

what a riot - can you think of another Texan who the very same thing was said about?

you crack me up

Serge Ibaka
10/1/2011, 04:06 PM
I fully believe that Libertarians are stupid sons-a-bi**hes.

Still, I respect Ron Paul more than almost anybody in the game. He's honest and sincere; he sticks to his beliefs.

He's still a stupid sonovabi**h. But kudos to him.

soonercruiser
10/1/2011, 10:18 PM
Anybody remember the movie Cocoon??

I think that Ron Paul was inside the first cocoon they opened.
(It was a pre-WW II one.)

SicEmBaylor
10/1/2011, 10:35 PM
I pretty much agree with Ron Paul on this. I have a serious issue with the US government killing one of its own citizens without a trial or hearing. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this son of a bitch, but people like this are the very reason we have the constitutional protections that we have.

If this had happened while Bush was in office, the left would be outraged along with Ron Paul. It just goes to show how unprincipled those on the left in the so-called "anti-war" movement really are. Where is Code Pink? Where is the ACLU for God's sake?

JohnnyMack
10/2/2011, 08:09 AM
what a riot - can you think of another Texan who the very same thing was said about?

you crack me up

If you think there's any similarity between W and Ron Paul you're not as smart as you act. Poor old jk getting all defensive of his precious GOP.

:les:Don't be mean to the Republicans!!!

ps - if Christie did enter the race, I'd vote for him.

jk the sooner fan
10/2/2011, 09:14 AM
defensive? i'm just pointing out the obvious

W was widely accused of being cemented in his principled beliefs - not caving or changing his mind on things even when all the evidence supported that

this isnt a "defend W, or the GOP" thing - its just pointing out the hypocrisy

you can be in denial all you want

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/2/2011, 09:29 AM
I pretty much agree with Ron Paul on this. I have a serious issue with the US government killing one of its own citizens without a trial or hearing. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this son of a bitch, but people like this are the very reason we have the constitutional protections that we have.

If this had happened while Bush was in office, the left would be outraged along with Ron Paul. It just goes to show how unprincipled those on the left in the so-called "anti-war" movement really are. Where is Code Pink? Where is the ACLU for God's sake?
http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/2011/02/aclu-ccr-drop-suit-over-awlaki-kill-list.html

Case was thrown out


US District Judge John Bates threw out the case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, saying there were "no judicially manageable standards" for assessing the military and intelligence issues involved in the case.

JohnnyMack
10/3/2011, 09:33 AM
defensive? i'm just pointing out the obvious

W was widely accused of being cemented in his principled beliefs - not caving or changing his mind on things even when all the evidence supported that

this isnt a "defend W, or the GOP" thing - its just pointing out the hypocrisy

you can be in denial all you want

OK, I'll give you that W did in fact stick to his guns. That make you feel better?

MountainOkie
10/3/2011, 09:39 AM
http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/2011/02/aclu-ccr-drop-suit-over-awlaki-kill-list.html

Case was thrown out

Oh, well then. The United States government said what it did was okay. Nothing to see here then. Move along sir. It's all taken care of. [sarcasm? you betcha']

MR2-Sooner86
10/3/2011, 10:20 PM
Remember civil liberties and freedom? Yeah, it was nice.

AlboSooner
10/3/2011, 10:22 PM
Paul's stance is correct, however realistically it was ok to eliminate him.

SoonerProphet
10/4/2011, 09:29 AM
There is nothing in the Constitution or laws of the United States of America that permits a president to order the summary execution of any human being. Only Congress can declare war. Only a jury can find someone guilty of a crime. Only a judge can impose a death sentence. To bad we seemingly have abdandoned out Constitutional Republic in the guise of "security".

Midtowner
10/4/2011, 09:51 AM
If the U.S. government can murder a citizen for speech crimes, we have no freedoms. The Constitution has to apply always, not just when it's convenient. I'm not losing any sleep over the individual they killed, but the principle of the thing is frightening. It shows that there is no mechanism which the judicial branch will even consider to ensure that this tactic is only applied to the guilty and evil.

Really, if Ron Paul starts leading in the polls and the President and the DoD think he's going to be an unmitigated disaster as President, why not just blow him up? What's to stop them from doing that?

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 10:00 AM
What's to stop them from doing that?

common sense?

JohnnyMack
10/4/2011, 10:09 AM
Admittedly I don't know every detail of what this al-Awlaki cat did over the years. Could have been some bad ****. Or he could have been just a mouthpiece, rallying extremists against us. At what point, if ever does a US citizens actions lead him to being removed from the gene pool without the process of an arrest, trial, conviction and execution? Ever?

I know there were lots of German immigrants who returned to fight for the Third Reich. Did they forfeit their citizenship? Were the US troops supposed to arrest them instead of shooting them?

I think this whole incident is several shades of grey, I don't think it's as cut and dry as many are making it out to be.

Midtowner
10/4/2011, 10:19 AM
I know there were lots of German immigrants who returned to fight for the Third Reich. Did they forfeit their citizenship? Were the US troops supposed to arrest them instead of shooting them?

Al-Awlaki never shot guns or anything at the U.S. He just encouraged others to.


common sense?

How is it common sense? Before, I would have told you that killing citizens overseas for speech crimes, contravening the Bill of Rights, due process, etc., demonstrates a lack of common sense. Clearly, that's a movable target.

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 10:22 AM
i think you're bored and looking for a stick to stir a pot with

thats what i think

we're at war.....you can splice that up however you wish - deny it, agree with it - etc

it's not a conventional war - so it makes people uneasy....this guy - regardless of where he was born - has engaged in unconventional warfare against the US and it's citizens - however passive or subverted it may be

he got killed as a result

i will not shed one single tear, nor fear that our government is spinning out of control, or that Ron Paul is in grave danger

Midtowner
10/4/2011, 10:27 AM
So our rights do not apply as long as we're "at war"?

Looking forward, do you see a point when we're not going to be at war anymore?

MR2-Sooner86
10/4/2011, 10:27 AM
i will not...fear that our government is spinning out of control

You just wake up after a 50 year nap? You have a lot of catching up to do.

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 10:28 AM
yes, when the war ends - then we wont be at war anymore

he's an enemy combatant - he got killed because of it

are you suggesting that during other - more conventional wars - our soldiers were supposed to stop before shooting and make an effort to determine if the enemy might be an ex-patriot US citizen?

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 10:29 AM
You just wake up after a 50 year nap? You have a lot of catching up to do.

i know you like to exaggerate, fear monger, and condemn "the man" - but please keep my quotes in the proper context and perspective.......mmmmkay?

SoonerProphet
10/4/2011, 10:47 AM
thats what i think

we're at war.....you can splice that up however you wish - deny it, agree with it - etc



“We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.”

MR2-Sooner86
10/4/2011, 10:52 AM
i know you like to exaggerate, fear monger, and condemn "the man" - but please keep my quotes in the proper context and perspective.......mmmmkay?

It's called the truth, you might be interested in it. I know, to you we're at war and this is perfectly fine. You probably have no problem with TSA feeling up your 10 year old daughter or taking nude photographs of your wife. Some of us don't have wills that break so easily.

You say he was an "enemy combatant" but that's not true.
Under the Geneva Convention he'd be considered an unlawful combatant as he's not part of any state military.
He wasn't in an active war zone.
He wasn't in a country we had declared war on.

The thing is, do we know if he planned anything? Yes, he made many anti-American speeches and "inspired" some people like the Fort Hood shooter but he didn't carry it out. Terry Nichols planned and helped prepare for the Oklahoma City Bombing yet he didn't even get the death penalty. If all he did was make some speeches, as much as it sucks why take him out? There are plenty of anti-Americans living here yet we don't take them out. Many of them are in mosques as well. Why don't we take them out?

Remember when that Muslim, who praised 9/11, put Matt and Trey in harms way for that South Park episode? Nothing was done. Why? He was protected by the first amendment.

"Well, he committed treason and that's punishable by death!"

Only Congress can determine the punishment of treason.

Let me ask you this, if the Government found out the location of Ted Kaczynski's cabin, determined he was too much of a threat to capture, and called in an air strike to take it out, would you be alright with that?

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 10:55 AM
It's called the truth, you might be interested in it. I know, to you we're at war and this is perfectly fine. You probably have no problem with TSA feeling up your 10 year old daughter or taking nude photographs of your wife. Some of us don't have wills that break so easily.

You say he was an "enemy combatant" but that's not true.
Under the Geneva Convention he'd be considered an unlawful combatant as he's not part of any state military.
He wasn't in an active war zone.
He wasn't in a country we had declared war on.

The thing is, do we know if he planned anything? Yes, he made many anti-American speeches and "inspired" some people like the Fort Hood shooter but he didn't carry it out. Terry Nichols planned and helped prepare for the Oklahoma City Bombing yet he didn't even get the death penalty. If all he did was make some speeches, as much as it sucks why take him out? There are plenty of anti-Americans living here yet we don't take them out. Many of them are in mosques as well. Why don't we take them out?

Remember when that Muslim, who praised 9/11, put Matt and Trey in harms way for that South Park episode? Nothing was done. Why? He was protected by the first amendment.

"Well, he committed treason and that's punishable by death!"

Only Congress can determine the punishment of treason.

Let me ask you this, if the Government found out the location of Ted Kaczynski's cabin, determined he was too much of a threat to capture, and called in an air strike to take it out, would you be alright with that?

dont make so many assumptions about what you know or think about me - it makes you look foolish

you guys carry on with your wrist slitting!

TUSooner
10/4/2011, 10:56 AM
*****
I think this whole incident is several shades of grey, I don't think it's as cut and dry as many are making it out to be.

We don't allow no "grey" shades in these parts. Them's a liberal atheist trick to get us to open up our minds and let in all kinds of dangerous stuff, you know like THOUGHTS and LOGIC and DOUBTIN, which we hate 'cuz they generally leads to trouble. We like our arguments in good ol' black & white, thankyee, so we can be 100% sure we are right and don't have to bother with no more o' that hi-falutin "thinking." SO just mosey on along now and GIT!

MR2-Sooner86
10/4/2011, 10:57 AM
dont make so many assumptions about what you know or think about me - it makes you look foolish

you guys carry on with your wrist slitting!

Translation: I'm in over my head so I'm going to stop before I have to present facts and evidence to back up my claims.

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 11:01 AM
Translation: I'm in over my head so I'm going to stop before I have to present facts and evidence to back up my claims.

whatever makes you feel best!


edit: i've stated how i feel about it - i've learned that arguing with strangers on the internet is a waste of time

if you need to 'be right' to feel better about yourself - go right ahead

it just gets to a point where its a waste of time - and the debate spins so far off the original topic - you lose sight of what you were arguing about

OhU1
10/4/2011, 11:02 AM
Good thing Bin Laden wasn't a U.S. citizen, many here would be wringing their hands in angst right now.

Midtowner
10/4/2011, 01:23 PM
yes, when the war ends - then we wont be at war anymore

Oh? What's the end game for this war on terror? How on Earth will it ever be over?


he's an enemy combatant - he got killed because of it

But he never fired a gun or bombed us or committed any act of violence against the U.S. He was probably guilty of inciting others, which is definitely not protected speech, and definitely a felony, but not even one punishable by death.


are you suggesting that during other - more conventional wars - our soldiers were supposed to stop before shooting and make an effort to determine if the enemy might be an ex-patriot US citizen?

This was totally different. We knew who this guy was, that he was a citizen, that he was of no immediate threat to anyone, and we still blew him up.

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 01:28 PM
i'm not trying to change any minds here - i shared my opinion - how i feel on the topic

thats really it - there's not much for me to debate here....you guys want to dream up some ridiculous "what if" scenarios - enjoy!

however - i would submit this one thing - in all wars - there is always a leader - that is most often never on an actual battlefield and never carries a weapon......that doesnt mean we're not out to get them though..and i think to say that he was no immediate threat to anyone is foolish....the intelligence being reported suggests otherwise - look no farther than Maj Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood

peace out fellas, its OU texas week and i'm gonna enjoy the smack wars with horns

okie52
10/4/2011, 03:11 PM
If only Obama would be as committed to killing people crossing the border....

SoonerProphet
10/4/2011, 03:13 PM
If Awlaki was a legitimate target, wouldn’t that mean the pentagon and white house were legitimate on 9/11/1? If it is war, and assassination is legitimate, and collateral damage is legitimate, then what happens when the US soil is the subject of an identical form of attack?

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 03:18 PM
i think we found out what happens when the US soil is the subject of attack - i dont understand your question - if its rhetorical - well it happened and we know what the response was


remember the plot to kill Bush 41?

pphilfran
10/4/2011, 03:56 PM
If the U.S. government can murder a citizen for speech crimes, we have no freedoms. The Constitution has to apply always, not just when it's convenient. I'm not losing any sleep over the individual they killed, but the principle of the thing is frightening. It shows that there is no mechanism which the judicial branch will even consider to ensure that this tactic is only applied to the guilty and evil.

Really, if Ron Paul starts leading in the polls and the President and the DoD think he's going to be an unmitigated disaster as President, why not just blow him up? What's to stop them from doing that?

As usual...excellent response....

landrun
10/4/2011, 04:41 PM
Hey liberals... explain to me how you can be consistent and have no problem killing a US citizen and yes insist on trials for terrorists from other countries giving them the same rights as accused criminals in the US? Why can't we just keep them locked up as prisoners of war until this war is over? If this guy never shot a gun etc.. at us, and these Gitmo prisoners were taken by US troops during war, how do you justify you're indignation at the prior administration for taking foreigners and you have no problem at all with a sitting president killing a US citizen.

Doesn't add up to me.. unless of course, you were never sincere about thinking the conservatives being war criminals, your love for peace and justice, human rights... and all that stuff...

jk the sooner fan
10/4/2011, 04:43 PM
i'm stuck on trying to figure out how somebody honestly feels like they no longer have "any freedoms" because of this

sounds a bit melodramatic to me

Midtowner
10/4/2011, 05:07 PM
@jk, because in the past, we had certain guarantees as citizens that our government could not take life, liberty or property from us without the due process of law. That was totally denied to Al-Awlaki. He was summarily executed by a drone as he was driving around in the desert, not an immediate threat to anyone. The gov't decided he was a threat and just blew him up. If there's no process for determining whether you can kill this citizen, no required deliberation, then it stands to reason that the government can decide anyone at any time is a threat and kill them without notice or process or a hearing or anything. That's what the dismissal of Al-Awlaki's lawsuit filed by the ACLU says.

I am just as disgusted at our treatment of Gitmo detainees. It has been proven that a great number of them were simply turned in for bounty money we were paying over there and weren't involved in anything nefarious at all. But since we didn't have a system of due process to actually investigate whether or not they should be detained (we skipped straight to the torture part), a lot of innocent people had years of their lives stolen from them.

okie52
10/4/2011, 05:29 PM
@jk, because in the past, we had certain guarantees as citizens that our government could not take life, liberty or property from us without the due process of law. That was totally denied to Al-Awlaki. He was summarily executed by a drone as he was driving around in the desert, not an immediate threat to anyone. The gov't decided he was a threat and just blew him up. If there's no process for determining whether you can kill this citizen, no required deliberation, then it stands to reason that the government can decide anyone at any time is a threat and kill them without notice or process or a hearing or anything. That's what the dismissal of Al-Awlaki's lawsuit filed by the ACLU says.

I am just as disgusted at our treatment of Gitmo detainees. It has been proven that a great number of them were simply turned in for bounty money we were paying over there and weren't involved in anything nefarious at all. But since we didn't have a system of due process to actually investigate whether or not they should be detained (we skipped straight to the torture part), a lot of innocent people had years of their lives stolen from them.

I can understand your outrage...we even give due process to those here illegally and provide them with an attorney to defend themselves. What a barbaric country.

SicEmBaylor
10/4/2011, 05:41 PM
i'm stuck on trying to figure out how somebody honestly feels like they no longer have "any freedoms" because of this

sounds a bit melodramatic to me

Because, JK, if constitutional rights and protections are so fleeting that a President can dispense with those rights at his leisure then they aren't really rights. They become "privileges."

marfacowboy
10/4/2011, 05:59 PM
I pretty much agree with Ron Paul on this. I have a serious issue with the US government killing one of its own citizens without a trial or hearing. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this son of a bitch, but people like this are the very reason we have the constitutional protections that we have.

If this had happened while Bush was in office, the left would be outraged along with Ron Paul. It just goes to show how unprincipled those on the left in the so-called "anti-war" movement really are. Where is Code Pink? Where is the ACLU for God's sake?

Actually, there are a lot of people on the left outraged by this. Visit Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_of_anwar_al_awlaki) and Truthout, two leading leftist publications. Last Friday, Jameel Jaffer, the A.C.L.U.’s deputy legal director, said that the drone strike, violated United States and international law. Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas and specialist in national security law, said the killings were, in his opinion, legal, but acknowledged they were “plenty controversial” among legal specialists.

marfacowboy
10/4/2011, 06:03 PM
Hey liberals... explain to me how you can be consistent and have no problem killing a US citizen and yes insist on trials for terrorists from other countries giving them the same rights as accused criminals in the US? Why can't we just keep them locked up as prisoners of war until this war is over? If this guy never shot a gun etc.. at us, and these Gitmo prisoners were taken by US troops during war, how do you justify you're indignation at the prior administration for taking foreigners and you have no problem at all with a sitting president killing a US citizen.

Doesn't add up to me.. unless of course, you were never sincere about thinking the conservatives being war criminals, your love for peace and justice, human rights... and all that stuff...

I think most leftists would tell you we don't have any business doing such things in other countries and that it's a violation of international law. They wouldn't acknowledge there is a "war," either. It's just the U.S. using terrorism as an excuse to advance its capitalist interests.
It's also interesting to note that, at least according to the FBI, the number one terrorist threat to the U.S. are white males within our own borders.

MR2-Sooner86
10/4/2011, 06:08 PM
i'm stuck on trying to figure out how somebody honestly feels like they no longer have "any freedoms" because of this

sounds a bit melodramatic to me

Vicki Weaver likes this post.

marfacowboy
10/4/2011, 06:10 PM
If the U.S. government can murder a citizen for speech crimes, we have no freedoms. The Constitution has to apply always, not just when it's convenient. I'm not losing any sleep over the individual they killed, but the principle of the thing is frightening. It shows that there is no mechanism which the judicial branch will even consider to ensure that this tactic is only applied to the guilty and evil.


That's right. In this case, no matter how you feel about the guy-and I have little sympathy for people that advocate the murder of women and children, an American citizen was assassinated by the American government on the order of the President. It's a scary thing to ponder, because it really leaves it up to just a handful of people, perhaps even just one, to decide if a person constitutes a threat and should therefore be eliminated.
The 5th Amendment states, "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."
I assume the legal defense here is that we are "in a time of war," but if that's the case, the U.S. will be in a time of war ad infinitum, so any citizen could be dealt without due process at any time.

AlboSooner
10/4/2011, 08:24 PM
If the U.S. government can murder a citizen for speech crimes, we have no freedoms. T

Awlaki left the "speech crime" arena long time ago. He trained the underwear bomber and many other terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Christmas_Day_.22Underwear_Bomber.22).

SicEmBaylor
10/4/2011, 08:38 PM
Awlaki left the "speech crime" arena long time ago. He trained the underwear bomber and many other terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Christmas_Day_.22Underwear_Bomber.22).

That is beside the point.

BU BEAR
10/4/2011, 08:51 PM
Dont go overseas and conduct warfare against the U.S., its citizens, or its interests and you will not have to worry about getting lit up by a Reaper or Predator.

Midtowner
10/4/2011, 09:54 PM
Dont go overseas and conduct warfare against the U.S., its citizens, or its interests and you will not have to worry about getting lit up by a Reaper or Predator.

If that's the standard, fine. Let it be law, let there be an inquiry, let there be a finding. Due process of law.

Here we have the chief executive saying "kill him" and the DoD saying "done."

BU BEAR
10/4/2011, 10:11 PM
If that's the standard, fine. Let it be law, let there be an inquiry, let there be a finding. Due process of law.

Here we have the chief executive saying "kill him" and the DoD saying "done."

He needs no more due process than was given to Confederate spies on the battlefield. I am not going to get excited about this sort of thing--extrajudicial killing American citizens in foreign countries who have declared war on America--until it become more routine. If you want to conduct some findings, visit Youtube. Youtube loves to carry videos of Awlaki and other terrorists; and you will be able to find vids where he calls for the killing of American civilians and military personnel.

If Awlaki and that turd, Samir Khan, wanted due process, then they should have stayed in the States; rather than joining a quasi-State beligerent and going to Yemen.

SicEmBaylor
10/4/2011, 10:32 PM
He needs no more due process than was given to Confederate spies on the battlefield. I am not going to get excited about this sort of thing--extrajudicial killing American citizens in foreign countries who have declared war on America--until it become more routine. If you want to conduct some findings, visit Youtube. Youtube loves to carry videos of Awlaki and other terrorists; and you will be able to find vids where he calls for the killing of American civilians and military personnel.

If Awlaki and that turd, Samir Khan, wanted due process, then they should have stayed in the States; rather than joining a quasi-State beligerent and going to Yemen.

Dear lord, please give me the strength not to neg one of my own. Amen.

Midtowner
10/4/2011, 10:51 PM
He needs no more due process than was given to Confederate spies on the battlefield. I am not going to get excited about this sort of thing--extrajudicial killing American citizens in foreign countries who have declared war on America--until it become more routine.

It was wrong then, it is wrong now. Also, arguably, the 14th Amendment strengthened due process protections, although the killing of Confederate spies was a federal action to which the 5th directly applied. We are a better country now than we were in the 1860s. Or at least I would hope so.

As far as myself "conducting" findings, I am not a tribunal. There needs to be some tribunal, some judicial authority which greenlights this sort of thing, or at least some semblance of a process to ascertain the level of threat and the appropriate response. What side of the bed the President wakes up on is not due process of law.

Sometimes, our rights as citizens pose some semblance of inconvenience to the authorities. You might be fine with them just brushing those rights off as no big *** deal. They are a big *** deal. End of story. Either our Constitutional rights mean something or they are meaningless. There's no middle ground.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 07:11 AM
do you guys honestly and personally feel less free? or are you championing the rights of the Al-Awakis, et al?

Midtowner
10/5/2011, 07:34 AM
do you guys honestly and personally feel less free? or are you championing the rights of the Al-Awakis, et al?

It's a fact that we are less free and our rights mean nothing. If the executive declares that some exigent circumstances exist, it now claims to have the power to remove you from this planet without even the show of a process to determine whether such action is warranted. The thing is, with no checks and balances and a judiciary which refuses to intervene, this could literally happen to anyone and be perfectly legal. This is pretty clearly a violation of U.S. and international law.

This is procedurally analogous to allowing police detectives give lethal injections themselves to anyone they truly believed was guilty of murder. I mean... they could have perfectly good evidence. A confession even. Why have a trial? Why go through all that silliness to arrive at a preordained conclusion?

--oh right.. that whole due process thing...

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 07:51 AM
It's a fact that we are less free and our rights mean nothing. If the executive declares that some exigent circumstances exist, it now claims to have the power to remove you from this planet without even the show of a process to determine whether such action is warranted. The thing is, with no checks and balances and a judiciary which refuses to intervene, this could literally happen to anyone and be perfectly legal. This is pretty clearly a violation of U.S. and international law.

This is procedurally analogous to allowing police detectives give lethal injections themselves to anyone they truly believed was guilty of murder. I mean... they could have perfectly good evidence. A confession even. Why have a trial? Why go through all that silliness to arrive at a preordained conclusion?

--oh right.. that whole due process thing...

Seems a little hysterical to me. And no, it was not wrong to hang Confederate spies then just like it is not wrong to summarily execute an enemy combatant--even one who holds U.S. citizenship--in today's conflict with quasi-state actors.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 07:53 AM
This is procedurally analogous to allowing police detectives give lethal injections themselves to anyone they truly believed was guilty of murder. I mean... they could have perfectly good evidence. A confession even. Why have a trial? Why go through all that silliness to arrive at a preordained conclusion?

--oh right.. that whole due process thing...

are you honestly worried about this? with the protections we have in our court system and a 24 hour news cycle - the chances of this are about as remote as me signing on to join Al Qaeda

i spent 15 years in law enforcement - work for the fedgov in an investigative role now, surrounded by attorneys at work - so i'm not at all a "noob" when it comes to the concept of due process

but your scenario is so over the top - i just have to wonder if that principled sword you're falling on is worth it

i for one dont feel the least bit "less free"...


thats what is great about this country though - you're entitled to feel the way you do, and vice versa

enjoy

Midtowner
10/5/2011, 08:32 AM
are you honestly worried about this? with the protections we have in our court system and a 24 hour news cycle - the chances of this are about as remote as me signing on to join Al Qaeda

The court system has ruled on this case that it doesn't have the authority to act because of national security reasons and a lack of any standard of review. The only reason we know about it is because the government told us. They didn't have to tell us and the media probably wouldn't have found out on their own, and even if they did, they guy's a terrorist, right? The administration said so, so it must be true. Politicians never lie.

TUSooner
10/5/2011, 08:37 AM
are you honestly worried about this? with the protections we have in our court system and a 24 hour news cycle - the chances of this are about as remote as me signing on to join Al Qaeda

i spent 15 years in law enforcement - work for the fedgov in an investigative role now, surrounded by attorneys at work - so i'm not at all a "noob" when it comes to the concept of due process

but your scenario is so over the top - i just have to wonder if that principled sword you're falling on is worth it

i for one dont feel the least bit "less free"...


thats what is great about this country though - you're entitled to feel the way you do, and vice versa

enjoy

I think it's easier for a policeman to say "your rights are safe" than it is for the average joe without a badge. I know a few cops and some of them I greatly respect, but even my favorite cops seem to have a different way of looking at things than I do as a lawyer who also deals, albeit less directly, with where the Constitution meets the street. Most cops have respect for constitutional rights, but their #1 focus is necesssaily on getting bad guys; so they will do whatever the law allows. If the law allows them to stretch the envelope, they will, because they're really just doing their very difficult job. So you can't really blame them. That's why the courts and lawmakers have to set real limits. That's why illegally obtained evidence needs to be excluded, for example.

Despite all the unwarrated outrage over criminals supposedly set free on "technicalities," the legal protections of the 4th Amendment and the Habeas Corpus Clause are being turned into paper walls. These "technicalities" were enshrined as near-sacred by the founders of this nation, but they are being eroded in the name of illusory expendiency at every turn.

Mark my words, if a cop wants to stop you and search your car on a mere hunch, he can and will do it. He just has to be a little patient until you make some trivial driving error, like an improper lane change. He then performs a few easy-to-learn constitutional dance steps to show a court that he was "reasonable." And VOILA -- the 4th Amendment is confetti. This is especailly true if you live near a US border. The Constituional is in danger of being shredded by the left & the right. Somembody has to stand up for it even when it may be unpopular among the masses or the chattering classes. The Founders did not leave civl rights to the "common sense" of the policeman, but the Supreme Court has been moving that way.

AS TO the guy we killed:
I said this in another thread:

1 -If this fuzzy dude was taking up arms (and I said "if"), you could compare the situation to one where a cop has to shoot a perpetrator to protect the lives of others in exigent circumstances, like in the middle of an armed robbery or a hostage situation. I don't know if that's a close analogy to the facts about this guy. But it's better than the silly analogy of a cop offing some guy in a jail becaiuse the cop thinks he's guilty.

2- If (again "if") we were in a constituionally declared war, the dude would be fair game, as if he were any a US citizen who turned coat. But we have abandoned constitutional war, so everything is gray and fuzzy. To me THIS is the real troubling thing: We have abandoned the constitutional concept of declared war. So all these undeclared wars invite every sort of twisting of rules, disregarding of rules, fabrication of new rules - in short, anything goes. And that should be a great concern, since we have been in a state of undeclared war against legally ill-defined enemies with but few interruptions since after WW2.

TUSooner
10/5/2011, 08:53 AM
Dont go overseas and conduct warfare against the U.S., its citizens, or its interests and you will not have to worry about getting lit up by a Reaper or Predator.

Can you give me a legally usable defintion of "war," now that Congress no longer declares them as required by our Constitution? "I know it when I see it" is not good enough.

sappstuf
10/5/2011, 09:11 AM
I think it's easier for a policeman to say "your rights are safe" than it is for the average joe without a badge. I know a few cops and some of them I greatly respect, but even my favorite cops seem to have a different way of looking at things than I do as a lawyer who also deals, albeit less directly, with where the Constitution meets the street. Most cops have real respect for constitutional rights, but their #1 focus is necesssaily on getting bad guys; so they will do whatever the law allows. If the law allows them to stretch the envelope, they will, because they're really just doing their very difficult job, so you can't really blame them. That's why the courts and lawmakers have to set real limits. That's why illegally obtained evidence needs to be excluded, for example.

Despite all the unwarrated outrage over criminals supposedly set free on "technicalities," the legal protections of the 4th Amendment and the Habeas Corpus Clause are being truned into paper walls. Thise technicalities were enshrined as near-sacred by the founders of this nation, but they are being eroded in the name of illusory expendiency at every turn.

Mark my words, if a cop wants to stop you and search your car on a mere hunch, he can and will do it. He just has to be a little patient until you make some trivial driving error, like an improper lane change, and then perform a few easy-to-learn constitutional dance steps to show a court that he was "reasonable." And VOILA -- the 4th Amendment is confetti. This is especailly true if you live near a US border. The Constituional is in danger of being shredded by the left & the right. Somembody has to stand up for it even when it may be unpopular among the masses or the chattering classes.

AS TO the guy we killed:
I said this in another thread:

1 -If this fuzzy dude was taking up arms (and I said "if"), you could compare the situation to one where a cop has to shoot a perpetrator to protect the lives of others in exigent circumstances, like in the middle of an armed robbery or a hostage situation. I don't know if that's a close analogy to the facts about this guy. But it's better than the silly analogy of a cop offing some guy in a jail becaiuse the cop thinks he's guilty.

2- If (again "if") we were in a constituionally declared war, the dude would be fair game, as if he were any a US citizen who turned coat. But we have abandoned constitutional war, so everything is gray and fuzzy. To me THIS is the real troubling thing: We have abandoned the constitutional concept of declared war. So all these undeclared wars invite every sort of twisting of rules, disregarding of rules, fabrication of new rules - in short, anything goes. And that should be a great conern, since we have been in a state of undeclared war against legally ill-defined enemies with a few interruptions since after WW2.

I hate to break this to you, but we didn't abandon the constitutional war, we never really used it at all. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, all Founding Fathers, had no problem engaging in warfare without congressional consent.

Considering we officially declared war on 8 countries in the past 90 years, versus 3 in the other 145, I could actually make a silly little case that we are using it more than we ever did before.

TUSooner
10/5/2011, 09:22 AM
I hate to break this to you, but we didn't abandon the constitutional war, we never really used it at all. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, all Founding Fathers, had no problem engaging in warfare without congressional consent.

Considering we officially declared war on 8 countries in the past 90 years, versus 3 in the other 145, I could actually make a silly little case that we are using it more than we ever did before.

So? The point is that we are not using it now, and we have a messy situation. And, yes, your argument would be silly.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 09:26 AM
question - if Bill Clinton had lobbed a missile on top of the tent where Bin Laden was living in the desert while Clinton was POTUS -would this have been a problem for you folks- or not because he's not an American Citizen?

okie52
10/5/2011, 09:29 AM
question - if Bill Clinton had lobbed a missile on top of the tent where Bin Laden was living in the desert while Clinton was POTUS -would this have been a problem for you folks- or not because he's not an American Citizen?

Clinton tried but missed him in Afghanistan.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 09:33 AM
Clinton tried but missed him in Afghanistan.

no, they never fired it - they were concerned about collateral damage - there was one occasion where intell had him like a sitting duck in the desert and Clinton didnt pull the trigger

thats what i remember reading anyway

Midtowner
10/5/2011, 09:35 AM
question - if Bill Clinton had lobbed a missile on top of the tent where Bin Laden was living in the desert while Clinton was POTUS -would this have been a problem for you folks- or not because he's not an American Citizen?

No problem whatsoever. If Bin Laden was an American citizen, I do have a problem.

sappstuf
10/5/2011, 09:39 AM
So? The point is that we are not using it now, and we have a messy situation. And, yes, your argument would be silly.

Silly, but accurate.

War is messy.. What do you want? The president has broad powers to conduct warfare. Presidents since the beginng of our country have take military actions without war being declared.

The American was killed in Yemen.. Do you think we should have declared war on Yemen? It would be pretty strange since Obama is set to send them $35 million in military aid...

Nope, these types of operations will always be at the behest of the president as the Commander in Chief. It might not be perfect, but it isn't going to change.

I would have rather captured him and tried him, but then again, I would rather catch the majority of the leaders of Al-qeada and interrogate them versus dropping 500 pounds of flying explosive on their heads. Sometimes it just isn't possible or worth the risk.

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 09:54 AM
no, they never fired it - they were concerned about collateral damage - there was one occasion where intell had him like a sitting duck in the desert and Clinton didnt pull the trigger

thats what i remember reading anyway

Similar to when W had him in Tora Bora and didn't pull the trigger?

I suppose god needs the devil though.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 09:57 AM
i'm pretty sure we carpet bombed the hell out of those caves in Tora Bora

not sure what you're referring too though

predictable of you to bring God into the discussion though

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 10:22 AM
i'm pretty sure we carpet bombed the hell out of those caves in Tora Bora

not sure what you're referring too though

predictable of you to bring God into the discussion though

I was referring to Dalton Fury.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Bin-Laden-Commanders-Account/dp/0312547412/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1/175-7677170-8537406

And "god needs the devil" is a pretty appropriate expression when it comes to hawkish Presidents and middle eastern foreign policy.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 10:26 AM
yep - i agree - we definitely need to create an enemy over there

they havent done a thing to incur that label on their own

marfacowboy
10/5/2011, 10:27 AM
No problem whatsoever. If Bin Laden was an American citizen, I do have a problem.

I'll second that. It's doesn't matter what kind of people they are. Most of these guys are bad guys, no question. This is about one of our most sacred principles, the rule of law. There's no grey area here. Or there shouldn't be.
There was a time in this country when guys like Leander McNelly and his Texas Rangers rounded up Mexican cattle thieves, killed them and stacked their bodies in Brownsville's town square. You want to go back to those days?

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 10:33 AM
i want to go back to reality

pphilfran
10/5/2011, 10:39 AM
Why haven't we already hung the Ft. Hood shooter? He is guilty...don't need a trial...

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 10:42 AM
yes, because those two situations are EXACTLY ALIKE

jeebus - TU is the only making sensical comparisons - the rest of you are screaming like chicken little

sappstuf
10/5/2011, 10:59 AM
I'll second that. It's doesn't matter what kind of people they are. Most of these guys are bad guys, no question. This is about one of our most sacred principles, the rule of law. There's no grey area here. Or there shouldn't be.
There was a time in this country when guys like Leander McNelly and his Texas Rangers rounded up Mexican cattle thieves, killed them and stacked their bodies in Brownsville's town square. You want to go back to those days?

I am unfamiliar with that part of our history.. Was it before or after Waco?












I jest.

marfacowboy
10/5/2011, 11:42 AM
yes, because those two situations are EXACTLY ALIKE

jeebus - TU is the only making sensical comparisons - the rest of you are screaming like chicken little

They're not exactly similar but they are similar in that you have quasi law enforcement or paramilitary organizations carrying out executions of individuals without a trial.

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 11:45 AM
Can you give me a legally usable defintion of "war," now that Congress no longer declares them as required by our Constitution? "I know it when I see it" is not good enough.

If you do not believe that we are at war with Al-Queda, then I probably cannot give you a definition that will satisfy. If you do believe that we are at war with Al-Queda, then we have no argument on this point.

marfacowboy
10/5/2011, 11:49 AM
I don't see people on the right ever agreeing with liberals or leftists on this issue. Ever. There are just two completely different views of the world. One group basically believes the United States can act unilaterally to protect any interests whenever it sees fit. The other group doesn't.

NormanPride
10/5/2011, 11:51 AM
I don't see people on the right ever agreeing with liberals or leftists on this issue. Ever. There are just two completely different views of the world. One group basically believes the United States can act unilaterally to protect any interests whenever it sees fit. The other group doesn't.

Which is which?

sappstuf
10/5/2011, 11:52 AM
I don't see people on the right ever agreeing with liberals or leftists on this issue. Ever. There are just two completely different views of the world. One group basically believes the United States can act unilaterally to protect any interests whenever it sees fit. The other group doesn't.

You might be right... When Obama went into Libya with absolutely no US interests at all he was....

Wait.

okie52
10/5/2011, 12:16 PM
no, they never fired it - they were concerned about collateral damage - there was one occasion where intell had him like a sitting duck in the desert and Clinton didnt pull the trigger

thats what i remember reading anyway

I thought he did pull the trigger...but I could be wrong.

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-08-20/us/9808_20_us.strikes.01_1_sudanese-television-bin-mullah-abdullah?_s=PM:US

TUSooner
10/5/2011, 12:27 PM
If you do not believe that we are at war with Al-Queda, then I probably cannot give you a definition that will satisfy. If you do believe that we are at war with Al-Queda, then we have no argument on this point.
Of coure we are in armed conflct against AQ, but if we were "at war" with them, wouldn't the Gitmo detainees have POW rigts under the Geneva Conventions? And haven't we gone to great lengths to insist that they do not have those rights?

You could say that - without regard to outdated, impractical formalities such a declarations of war against extra-national forces - the USA has the sovereign right to go anywhere and kill or capture anyone if it's in our national interest, as determined by the Prez (and provided Congress doesn't fuss too much). I would say that the latter proposition is extreme, except that it seems to be, in fact, the reality: We do what we want because we can, and of course because we are right and just and fair.

I used to think that Ron Paul was nuts because of his foreign policy ideal. Now I'm starting to think that it's one of his better aspects. When will this state of "war" end? At this rate, it will end when we run out of money or when all the people who don't like us are dead or under our heel. Neither scenario appeals to me.

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 12:37 PM
Of coure we are in armed conflct against AQ, but if we were "at war" with them, wouldn't the Gitmo detainees have POW rigts under the Geneva Conventions? And haven't we gone to great lengths to insist that they do not have those rights?


I not sure what fine line distinction you are trying to draw; but if we send our military assets after a group with the objective of destroying them, then we are at war with them. Perhaps you prefer the term "Kinetic Operations," but that is still war.

No, even though we are at war with Al Queda, the members of Al Queda do not have Geneva Convention rights. They are unlawful combatants and are not entitled to POW status. They are subject to death on the battlefield; and if captured, then they may be brought before a military tribunal and executed just like the out-of-uniform German sabatuers who washed up on American shores during WWII and were caught, tried by tribunal, and executed. Of course, had they been detected prior to capture, then said Germans could have been shot on the spot.

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 12:37 PM
yep - i agree - we definitely need to create an enemy over there

they havent done a thing to incur that label on their own

I honestly feel like you and I simply have a fundamental difference of opinions if you think that our policy decisions have had no impact on the current state of affairs in the Middle East.

marfacowboy
10/5/2011, 12:39 PM
You might be right... When Obama went into Libya with absolutely no US interests at all he was....

Wait.

Obama isn't liberal or leftist. He's a power hungry, lying, capitalist prick, just like all the rest of 'em up there. Bernie Sanders and Kucinich are perhaps the only exceptions.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 12:51 PM
I honestly feel like you and I simply have a fundamental difference of opinions if you think that our policy decisions have had no impact on the current state of affairs in the Middle East.

you're just now figuring that out?


the bottom line - my opinion is that we can find a better "test case" in which to stand behind to fight for our "freedoms"

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 12:54 PM
you're just now figuring that out?

You're right, we are poor, put upon souls who quest to live in peace and harmony with the world, only to be attacked by the evil brown man.


the bottom line - my opinion is that we can find a better "test case" in which to stand behind to fight for our "freedoms"

I 100% agree with you here.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 01:00 PM
You're right, we are poor, put upon souls who quest to live in peace and harmony with the world, only to be attacked by the evil brown man.



i never said any such nonsense

never

but i do acknowledge that the people of the mideast and muslim religion - largely - are anti-US and anti-Western culture because it flies in the face of their religious teachings......the US in most cases - represents the Western culture moreso than any other nation.......i believe we'd be a target of their madness no matter what our foreign policy is/was

okie52
10/5/2011, 01:03 PM
You're right, we are poor, put upon souls who quest to live in peace and harmony with the world, only to be attacked by the evil brown man.





Quite correct. We have been invaded by about 30,000,000 of them.

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 01:04 PM
i never said any such nonsense

never

but i do acknowledge that the people of the mideast and muslim religion - largely - are anti-US and anti-Western culture because it flies in the face of their religious teachings......the US in most cases - represents the Western culture moreso than any other nation.......i believe we'd be a target of their madness no matter what our foreign policy is/was

War is big business.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 01:08 PM
gosh if only we could find examples of anti-western activity by muslim's before such a thing as the dreaded 'neo-con' or the defense industry came into being

if......only

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 01:12 PM
gosh if only we could find examples of anti-western activity by muslim's before such a thing as the dreaded 'neo-con' or the defense industry came into being

if......only

Are you talking about Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom?

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 01:32 PM
gosh if only we could find examples of anti-western activity by muslim's before such a thing as the dreaded 'neo-con' or the defense industry came into being

if......only

But seriously, that's your rebuttal? "Well, well, well, they did it first!" Sounds like something my kindergarten son would say.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 01:39 PM
But seriously, that's your rebuttal? "Well, well, well, they did it first!" Sounds like something my kindergarten son would say.

again - not what i said at all

you apparently have a reading comprehension problem

you said that war is big business or some such....now correct me if i'm wrong but that was a shot over the bow of the neo-con and hawks......correct?

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 01:40 PM
But seriously, that's your rebuttal? "Well, well, well, they did it first!" Sounds like something my kindergarten son would say.

It is not that "they" did it first so much as it is that "they" have a religio-legal-political doctrine that guarantees that they will do it again, and again, and again no matter what the foreign policy of the United States looks like.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 01:42 PM
http://www.meforum.org/168/at-war-with-whom

a brief history lesson

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 01:43 PM
here's a question

has radical islam carried out any attacks on countries who dont have pro-active neo-con foreign policies like the US?

anybody?

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 01:50 PM
here's a question

has radical islam carried out any attacks on countries who dont have pro-active neo-con foreign policies like the US?

anybody?

Russia (Beslan school children taken hostage, raped, and murdered), Spain, Egypt (against the Copts), Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia (Bali); Philippines (Abu Sayyaf group) Let me know if these are not enough because there are more countries like Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Ivory Coast. Let me know when you would like me to stop.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 01:57 PM
so its not just us and our hawkish neo-con government - is that what you're telling me?

marfacowboy
10/5/2011, 02:00 PM
here's a question

has radical islam carried out any attacks on countries who dont have pro-active neo-con foreign policies like the US?

anybody?

Some have been mentioned...here's a complete list for 2011:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:04 PM
so its not just us and our hawkish neo-con government - is that what you're telling me?

The best way to put it is that if Islam has a problem with everybody else, then the problem most likely lies with Islam. Of course, this would mean that Islam deserves more examination, including examination by Muslims, than it has received over the centuries.

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 02:09 PM
here's a question

has radical islam carried out any attacks on countries who dont have pro-active neo-con foreign policies like the US?

anybody?

Mine is not a defense of Islam, for as you know I think all religions are silly, antiquated mythologies that we as humans would be better leaving behind. First and foremost they're responsible for carrying out acts of violence. But your seeming inability to accept the notion that there are certain causal relationships between our actions and their actions mystifies me.

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:11 PM
Mine is not a defense of Islam, for as you know I think all religions are silly, antiquated mythologies that we as humans would be better leaving behind. First and foremost they're responsible for carrying out acts of violence. But your seeming inability to accept the notion that there are certain causal relationships between our actions and their actions mystifies me.

Wonder what their reason was for committing terrorist attacks prior to 1776.

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 02:12 PM
Wonder what their reason was for committing terrorist attacks prior to 1776.

Muslims or Christians?

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:15 PM
Muslims or Christians?

Muslims, since that is what we have been talking about.

SicEmBaylor
10/5/2011, 02:18 PM
I think it's easier for a policeman to say "your rights are safe" than it is for the average joe without a badge. I know a few cops and some of them I greatly respect, but even my favorite cops seem to have a different way of looking at things than I do as a lawyer who also deals, albeit less directly, with where the Constitution meets the street. Most cops have respect for constitutional rights, but their #1 focus is necesssaily on getting bad guys; so they will do whatever the law allows. If the law allows them to stretch the envelope, they will, because they're really just doing their very difficult job. So you can't really blame them. That's why the courts and lawmakers have to set real limits. That's why illegally obtained evidence needs to be excluded, for example.

Despite all the unwarrated outrage over criminals supposedly set free on "technicalities," the legal protections of the 4th Amendment and the Habeas Corpus Clause are being turned into paper walls. These "technicalities" were enshrined as near-sacred by the founders of this nation, but they are being eroded in the name of illusory expendiency at every turn.

Mark my words, if a cop wants to stop you and search your car on a mere hunch, he can and will do it. He just has to be a little patient until you make some trivial driving error, like an improper lane change. He then performs a few easy-to-learn constitutional dance steps to show a court that he was "reasonable." And VOILA -- the 4th Amendment is confetti. This is especailly true if you live near a US border. The Constituional is in danger of being shredded by the left & the right. Somembody has to stand up for it even when it may be unpopular among the masses or the chattering classes. The Founders did not leave civl rights to the "common sense" of the policeman, but the Supreme Court has been moving that way.

AS TO the guy we killed:
I said this in another thread:

1 -If this fuzzy dude was taking up arms (and I said "if"), you could compare the situation to one where a cop has to shoot a perpetrator to protect the lives of others in exigent circumstances, like in the middle of an armed robbery or a hostage situation. I don't know if that's a close analogy to the facts about this guy. But it's better than the silly analogy of a cop offing some guy in a jail becaiuse the cop thinks he's guilty.

2- If (again "if") we were in a constituionally declared war, the dude would be fair game, as if he were any a US citizen who turned coat. But we have abandoned constitutional war, so everything is gray and fuzzy. To me THIS is the real troubling thing: We have abandoned the constitutional concept of declared war. So all these undeclared wars invite every sort of twisting of rules, disregarding of rules, fabrication of new rules - in short, anything goes. And that should be a great concern, since we have been in a state of undeclared war against legally ill-defined enemies with but few interruptions since after WW2.

This likely won't help you much, but I agree 100% with this superb post.

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 02:19 PM
Muslims, since that is what we have been talking about.

Muslims are bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad people and we have them to blame for all our ills.

The end.

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:31 PM
Muslims are bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad people and we have them to blame for all our ills.

The end.

I thought surely a rational atheist, as you like to fancy yourself, would do better than that for an argument.

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 02:32 PM
http://www.meforum.org/168/at-war-with-whom

a brief history lesson

Daniel Pipes, are you f*cking kidding me. Some of you folks have a biased view of history if it began on 9/11.

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 02:38 PM
I thought surely a rational atheist, as you like to fancy yourself, would do better than that for an argument.

What's the point?

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 02:38 PM
Let me get this straight. So one particular brand of religious zealot who has been responsible for epic violence against his fellow man for a couple millenia is casting stones at another brand of relgious zealot who has been responsible for epic violence for a couple millenia, take a few hundred years. Brilliant!!

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:38 PM
Daniel Pipes, are you f*cking kidding me. Some of you folks have a biased view of history if it began on 9/11.

Ok. So, you don't like Daniel Pipes. Do you have anything else to offer?

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:39 PM
Let me get this straight. So one particular brand of religious zealot who has been responsible for epic violence against his fellow man for a couple millenia is casting stones at another brand of relgious zealot who has been responsible for epic violence for a couple millenia, take a few hundred years. Brilliant!!

I think we are talking more in terms of doctrines as the drivers of the violence rather than adherents who act either within or outside the normative boundaries set up by those doctrines.

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 02:40 PM
Ok. So, you don't like Daniel Pipes. Do you have anything else to offer?

Yeah, if the Muslim folks had predator drones and a fundamental right of due process dating back to 1215 he be as dead as fried chicken.

sappstuf
10/5/2011, 02:41 PM
Some have been mentioned...here's a complete list for 2011:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011

Hmmm... Where are all those white Christian North American males I keep hearing about...

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 02:44 PM
Daniel Pipes, are you f*cking kidding me. Some of you folks have a biased view of history if it began on 9/11.

i'm clearly saying the opposite.......that history began way before 9/11

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 02:45 PM
I think we are talking more in terms of doctrines as the drivers of the violence rather than adherents who act either within or outside the normative boundaries set up by those doctrines.

Sure, I bet you are fluent in Arabic and a Koranic scholar to boot. If you aren't then you are going on opinions about one quacky religious groups vs. the other.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 02:45 PM
you seem really angry prophet

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 02:46 PM
i'm clearly saying the opposite.......that history began way before 9/11

When, the Phoenicians, Hebrews, Charles Martel, Muhammad, Saladin. When is the start and where is the finish?

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 02:48 PM
you seem really angry prophet

nah, just tired of the silly blame game. i get it, they don't think like you, when they blowsh*it up it's bad, when we do it, it is so cool and stuff.

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:49 PM
Sure, I bet you are fluent in Arabic and a Koranic scholar to boot. If you aren't then you are going on opinions about one quacky religious groups vs. the other.

Actually, I am a fan of Majid Khadduri (born in Mosul, Iraq in the early 1900s) who was a Johns Hopkins professor and author who published many books on the subject of political and legal Islamic doctrines. I like Khadduri because almost all of his writings are pre-9/11and he does not claim any religion.

Outside of Khadduri, I have read "Reliance of the Traveller" which Al-Azhar University in Cairo (Harvard of the Muslim world) certified as a trustworthy translation to English. I have also read the works of Qutb and the Islamic legal texts/commentary (a) Tafsir Ibn Kathir; (b) Riyad us Saliheen; and (c) Fiqh us Sunna. Of course, I have also read the Quran and many of the Sahih (Reliable) Haddiths[primarily Bukhari].

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 02:52 PM
nah, just tired of the silly blame game. i get it, they don't think like you, when they blowsh*it up it's bad, when we do it, it is so cool and stuff.

never said any such thing

there is a cause and effect that trickles down thru history......lets keep this in the context of the thread.......johnnysmack is trying to say that we are solely to blame for anything the muslims have done to us...i'm simply countering that

i realize that we can go centuries back to the crusades, etc etc and find blame on both sides -that has spiraled into present day

i'm not dismissing our role or policy in any of this - i never have.....but i'm also not discounting the fact that these people have an inherent hatred for us - and as has been demonstrated - they are blowing up stuff in places other than the US.....so its not just a case of "they act the way they do because of the neo-cons"

SicEmBaylor
10/5/2011, 02:53 PM
Actually, I am a fan of Majid Khadduri (born in Mosul, Iraq in the early 1900s) who was a Johns Hopkins professor and author who published many books on the subject of political and legal Islamic doctrines. I like Khadduri because almost all of his writings are pre-9/11and he does not claim any religion.

...and yet none of that has anything to do with the fact that the US government decided to kill a United States citizen outside of its legal authority. A poorly defined "war" does not give the US government a blank check to do as it wishes all in the name of prosecuting that war. It's absurd at best and downright scary at worst.

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 02:56 PM
...and yet none of that has anything to do with the fact that the US government decided to kill a United States citizen outside of its legal authority. A poorly defined "war" does not give the US government a blank check to do as it wishes all in the name of prosecuting that war. It's absurd at best and downright scary at worst.

We kind of went off on a tangent as these threads are prone to do. It is your own problem that you cannot keep up. Perhaps a Baylor degree is worth less these days than when I was in school.

Anyway, if you think that killing a U.S. Citizen who fled to Yemen to conduct war against the U.S. and its citizens is scary, then you can just **** all over yourself from fear. But, I will not be losing any sleep over the targeted assassination of either Awlaki or Samir Khan.

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 03:00 PM
never said any such thing

there is a cause and effect that trickles down thru history......lets keep this in the context of the thread.......johnnysmack is trying to say that we are solely to blame for anything the muslims have done to us...i'm simply countering that

i realize that we can go centuries back to the crusades, etc etc and find blame on both sides -that has spiraled into present day

i'm not dismissing our role or policy in any of this - i never have.....but i'm also not discounting the fact that these people have an inherent hatred for us - and as has been demonstrated - they are blowing up stuff in places other than the US.....so its not just a case of "they act the way they do because of the neo-cons"

So would you not discount the fact that we people have an inherent hatred for them?

JohnnyMack
10/5/2011, 03:00 PM
never said any such thing

there is a cause and effect that trickles down thru history......lets keep this in the context of the thread.......johnnysmack is trying to say that we are solely to blame for anything the muslims have done to us...i'm simply countering that

i realize that we can go centuries back to the crusades, etc etc and find blame on both sides -that has spiraled into present day

i'm not dismissing our role or policy in any of this - i never have.....but i'm also not discounting the fact that these people have an inherent hatred for us - and as has been demonstrated - they are blowing up stuff in places other than the US.....so its not just a case of "they act the way they do because of the neo-cons"

I didn't say we were solely to blame, I said our foreign policy decisions have consequences.

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 03:02 PM
I said our foreign policy decisions have consequences.

Bingo!!

Let's not pretend it is all about religion either.

jk the sooner fan
10/5/2011, 03:03 PM
So would you not discount the fact that we people have an inherent hatred for them?

well - lets examine that - what percentage of THEM would you say is more fundamentally rooted in their religion?

and what percentage of US would you say the same thing?

do you think our inherent hatred for them has the same long history that theirs does for us?

is ours more rooted in patriotism than religion?

i dont think they're the same....the crusades ended in the 1200's or so.....i think that if not for their terror attacks - Joe Public wouldnt give 2 ****s about them

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 03:05 PM
So would you not discount the fact that we people have an inherent hatred for them?

I would challenge the above assertion. A link the FBI's Hate Crimes Report shows: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/victims.html


Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
2.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
0.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
8.3 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).

The vast majority of those targeted for violence on the basis of religion are Jews. Of the 1575 religiously motivated attacks only about 120 were due to anti-Islamic bias, even though conservative estimates put the U.S. Muslim population at about 2-3 million.

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 03:12 PM
Actually, I am a fan of Majid Khadduri (born in Mosul, Iraq in the early 1900s) who was a Johns Hopkins professor and author who published many books on the subject of political and legal Islamic doctrines. I like Khadduri because almost all of his writings are pre-9/11and he does not claim any religion.

Outside of Khadduri, I have read "Reliance of the Traveller" which Al-Azhar University in Cairo (Harvard of the Muslim world) certified as a trustworthy translation to English. I have also read the works of Qutb and the Islamic legal texts/commentary (a) Tafsir Ibn Kathir; (b) Riyad us Saliheen; and (c) Fiqh us Sunna. Of course, I have also read the Quran and many of the Sahih (Reliable) Haddiths[primarily Bukhari].


Do you know what Islamic school of interpretation Khadduri belonged to? Do you know if the line of scholars he comes from agrees with his view?

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 03:21 PM
Do you know what Islamic school of interpretation Khadduri belonged to? Do you know if the line of scholars he comes from agrees with his view?

Pay attention. I said Professor Khadduri did not claim a religion. So, he certainly did not adhere to a certain madthab/school of thought. If he was not religious, then he was not Islamic. If he was not Islamic, then he could not have been Hanafi, Shafii, Hanbali, Maliki, or Jaffari. He was only the best and brightest scholar on Islam of his time.

SoonerProphet
10/5/2011, 03:24 PM
Pay attention. I said Professor Khadduri did not claim a religion. So, he certainly did not adhere to a certain madthab/school of thought. He was only the best and brightest scholar on Islam of his time.

So how is he any authority on political Islam and what makes his "scholarly" interpretations of jihad different than mine or yours?

BU BEAR
10/5/2011, 03:49 PM
So how is he any authority on political Islam and what makes his "scholarly" interpretations of jihad different than mine or yours?

He is published for one thing. He has written on the Islamic Law of Nations in Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani's Siyar. He does a good job of showing how the Islamic doctrine of jihad has been applied through the ages and how the Islamic empire adapted itself to changing geo-political realities.

Sharia or Islamic law is ultimately knowable. And it is knowable by non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Like any other legal doctrine, you just have to study the texts and the doctrine itself.

This is from Wiki, but it will give you a sense of how polished a scholar that Professor Khadduri was:

After his experiences at the United Nations, Khadduri returned to the United States, where he was a professor at Indiana University and his alma mater, the University of Chicago, before settling at Johns Hopkins University, where he founded the SAIS Middle Eastern Studies program and served until 1970. From 1960 to 1980 he served as director of Center for Middle East Studies.[2] It was here that he offered some of the first courses on Islamic law in the nation.[4] His graduates include:

[1]
Elie Salem, former foreign minister of Lebanon
Soliman Solaim, former Saudi Arabian commerce minister
Samuel W. Lewis, United States ambassador to Egypt
Hermann Eilts, United States ambassador to Israel
Malcolm Kerr, assassinated president of the American University of Beirut

Throughout his tenure, he was also a visiting professor at institutions such as Columbia University, Harvard University, the University of Virginia and Georgetown University.[4] He also founded the Shaybani Society of International Law, the International Association of Middle East Studies and the University of Libya where he served as dean in 1957.[1]

[edit]Honours and awards

Philosophical Society grant
Fellowship from the Ford Foundation
Fulbright Program grant
Rockefeller Foundation grant (three times)
Honorary LHDs from John Hopkins and the State University of New York
Egyptian Order of Merit, first class
Order of Rafidain
Honorary fellow of the Middle East Studies Association
Member of the Academy of Arabic Language
Member of the Iraqi Academy[1]

JohnnyMack
10/6/2011, 09:16 AM
A panel has been established that can decide the fate of Americans such as al-Awalki.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/#.To24AOzmv5w

SoonerProphet
10/6/2011, 09:42 AM
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/four-thoughts-on-the-anwar-al-awlaki-assassination/

TUSooner
10/6/2011, 10:44 AM
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/four-thoughts-on-the-anwar-al-awlaki-assassination/ Good read.

NormanPride
10/6/2011, 10:50 AM
This scares the **** out of me.

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/6/2011, 10:54 AM
A panel has been established that can decide the fate of Americans such as al-Awalki.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/#.To24AOzmv5w
Its the dreaded death panel, Sarah!

sappstuf
10/6/2011, 01:32 PM
Its the dreaded death panel, Sarah!

You just made the list... ;)

jk the sooner fan
10/6/2011, 02:52 PM
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html


Loss of U.S. nationality was almost immediate consequences of foreign military service and the other acts listed in Section 349(a) until 1967 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253. In that decision, the court declared unconstitutional the provisions of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by voting in a foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated that a U.S. citizen "has a constitutional right to remain a citizen... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship."

Further confirmation of the necessity to establish the citizen's intent to relinquish nationality before expatriation will result came in the opinion in Vance v. Terrazas , 444 U.S. 252 (1980). The Court stated that "expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct." The Court also indicated that a person's intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship may be shown by statements or actions.

Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. Voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

TUSooner
10/6/2011, 02:57 PM
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html


****
Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. Voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
.

jk the sooner fan
10/6/2011, 03:01 PM
well i guess now the question is "how do we define voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the US"

TUSooner
10/6/2011, 03:08 PM
well i guess now the question is "how do we define voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the US"

Yeah, "state" is the turd in that punchbowl.

marfacowboy
10/6/2011, 03:31 PM
Someone make it stop. Please make it stop.

SoonerProphet
10/6/2011, 04:29 PM
well i guess now the question is "how do we define voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the US"

In addition to TU's point about stateless actors, I'd also point out that Yemen is far from "engaged in hostilities against the US", Saleh is on our and the House of Saud's payroll and one of our dictator buds in the region.

jk the sooner fan
10/6/2011, 04:49 PM
is it possible that AQ has been ruled a state at some point during this whole deal?

SoonerProphet
10/6/2011, 04:56 PM
is it possible that AQ has been ruled a state at some point during this whole deal?

By whom? Where are their government headquarters? Do they have a border? How about a flag, every country needs a cool flag.

jk the sooner fan
10/6/2011, 05:08 PM
By whom? Where are their government headquarters? Do they have a border? How about a flag, every country needs a cool flag.

by whom? i suppose the US govt - jeebus dude, lighten up - i didnt imply you had to agree with such a classification but we've been "at war" with AQ since 2001 - lots of white house lawyers have had their hands all over everything we've done - and you all act as if this hasnt been vetted out legally?

disagree with it all you like -but to suggest that Obama pulled that trigger without any legal advice or consideration - is ignorant

SoonerProphet
10/6/2011, 05:25 PM
by whom? i suppose the US govt - jeebus dude, lighten up - i didnt imply you had to agree with such a classification but we've been "at war" with AQ since 2001 - lots of white house lawyers have had their hands all over everything we've done - and you all act as if this hasnt been vetted out legally?

disagree with it all you like -but to suggest that Obama pulled that trigger without any legal advice or consideration - is ignorant

Lighten up? Dude, I made what I thought was a funny quip on flags. I'm not that worked up over a message board pissing contest and you know me better than that, you called me out about it on an earlier post on this thread. Just having a little back and forth from a worthy advesary is all.

Now on topic, not sure about the ability to unilaterally make a rather diverse group of goons, thugs, zealots, and criminals a state is something the US can just do. However, I will agree that there has been massive legal gymnastics but the last two administrations and their statist coterie of ambulance chases when it comes to neat things like torture and extrajudicial assassinations.

BU BEAR
10/6/2011, 06:07 PM
That is it, TUSooner. I am reporting you to AttackWatch.com. Oh, yes, be afraid. Jay Carney knows your IP address.

marfacowboy
10/6/2011, 08:10 PM
And now there's this: Secret Panel Puts Americans on "Kill List"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

okie52
10/6/2011, 08:25 PM
And now there's this: Secret Panel Puts Americans on "Kill List"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

Let's hope it is at least a bipartisan panel.

marfacowboy
10/6/2011, 08:49 PM
Let's hope it is at least a bipartisan panel.

Sure. But since all of this killing costs a lot of tax payer dollars, I think we should just privatize the killing squads. After all, a corporate killing squad would be run like a business. Much more efficient than the dadgum guvment!

jk the sooner fan
10/9/2011, 09:12 AM
i thought this article was a pretty good read on the administration's legal wrangling on this deal - rather than cut/paste excerpts - i'll let those interested read it and take from it what you find useful

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&ref=charliesavage

Breadburner
10/9/2011, 01:57 PM
He's dead...And I'm happy for it.....