You two appear to be having problems reading full paragraphs. We should always question this kind of action, a first so far as I can tell, when the person involved is a US citizen. That said, how many ways can I state that I fully support the action?
The crickets are deafening
- Thread starter I Love America
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
You two appear to be having problems reading full paragraphs. We should always question this kind of action, a first so far as I can tell, when the person involved is a US citizen. That said, how many ways can I state that I fully support the action?
Breakingnews
Well-Known Member
- Breakingnews Oct 04, 2011 at 07:28: AM
Breakingnews
Well-Known Member
You take a big swing and miss the ball yet again. There is no questioning this action as this guy gave up any of his rights as an American citizen when he declared himself a terrorist and a member of Al-Qeda.
Case closed.
If we do not question this and examine it before taking action against a US citizen, then we run the risk of a government that silences those who speak out against it. I think this was handled well and there were discussions about the fact he was a US citizen, debate about the risk he presented, and that he had effectively denounced the US. Surely you understand that caution is needed applauding this action though as we cannot further empower a government to take out US citizens at will. Terrorism, since it is not tied to a country, is changing the rules. We should move forward slowly, with caution, and with reasoned discussion. The risk here to future decisions is quite high. It was only a couple weeks ago Tea Party members were being called terrorists. I consider obama an enemy of the US.
Any avowed terrorist is an enemy of this country, citizen or not. Terrorists must be dealt with swiftly and without mercy. Whether a terrorist is white. black, brown red or yellow, whether christian, muslim or atheist, the only justice is death.
If Obama is an enemy of the US, then ALL teabaggers are enemies, especially the Koch Brothers Brigade and the Grover Norquist Battalion
You are just reinforcing my point. You think the tea party is an enemy and I think obama is. So, depending on who is in power, there is opportunity for abuse when the US allows an untried citizen to be put to death. Who defines who is a terrorist or enemy? I don't think there is any question of his guilt and overall support his death. However, I am concerned about the relative lack of discussion about what this means on a broader level. You think the patriot act took away citizen's rights? This goes far, far, beyond that.
Who will be targeted next? If this action doesn't frighten you to your core, if you don't see the potential for abuse of an out of control government, you are not paying attention and thinking.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveys...s-the-rubicon-the-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki/
Al-Awlaki and Khan were American citizens; while perhaps deserving of their fate—we do not know, for there has been no public fact-finding—they faced no court, no indictment, no duly constituted body of either house of Congress, and no normal prosecutorial oversight. The executive branch did not consult members of Congress, nor did it reach out to a judicial body.
While the administration claims that al-Awlaki was killed under the laws of war—in their words, “under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda”—as the Washington Post reported, the Justice Department wrote a secret memo that authorized al-Awlaki’s killing, a written opinion without which the CIA reportedly would not have proceeded. That al-Awlaki could be seen as just another enemy combatant was hardly clear—at least, hardly clear to the Central Intelligence Agency. Rather, there must have been a series of fact-findings—an analysis of evidence, followed by a determination of policy—that took place in order to justify the hit. But what were those facts, and what exactly is the threshold for determining when, how, and why the President may target an American citizen without so much as a phone call to a judge or even the chairman of a relevant congressional committee?
....there were any number of actions which the executive could have taken that would have lent some form of process to the profoundly consequential targeted killing of an American citizen. As we have noted above, perhaps the executive could have approached a FISA court, which is given the express authority for administering secret warrants for the surveillance of US citizens, and which is under no obligation to disclose the evidence presented by the Department of Justice. Or the President could have consulted the Senate and sought approval from an Intelligence committee. Or, as has been suggested elsewhere, the Department of Justice could have tried al-Awlaki in absentia, an extraordinary measure, but one lending at least some process to the killing. Other solutions may have been possible without the expenditure of much time and resources (and for which sufficient time clearly was available in view of the duration of this surveillance mission). But the President pursued none of them, proclaiming for the Executive an expanded power that would make the framers of the constitution shudder.
If the government can target its own citizens without even saying why to any duly-constituted body, what kind of republic do we have left?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveys...s-the-rubicon-the-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki/
Al-Awlaki and Khan were American citizens; while perhaps deserving of their fate—we do not know, for there has been no public fact-finding—they faced no court, no indictment, no duly constituted body of either house of Congress, and no normal prosecutorial oversight. The executive branch did not consult members of Congress, nor did it reach out to a judicial body.
While the administration claims that al-Awlaki was killed under the laws of war—in their words, “under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda”—as the Washington Post reported, the Justice Department wrote a secret memo that authorized al-Awlaki’s killing, a written opinion without which the CIA reportedly would not have proceeded. That al-Awlaki could be seen as just another enemy combatant was hardly clear—at least, hardly clear to the Central Intelligence Agency. Rather, there must have been a series of fact-findings—an analysis of evidence, followed by a determination of policy—that took place in order to justify the hit. But what were those facts, and what exactly is the threshold for determining when, how, and why the President may target an American citizen without so much as a phone call to a judge or even the chairman of a relevant congressional committee?
....there were any number of actions which the executive could have taken that would have lent some form of process to the profoundly consequential targeted killing of an American citizen. As we have noted above, perhaps the executive could have approached a FISA court, which is given the express authority for administering secret warrants for the surveillance of US citizens, and which is under no obligation to disclose the evidence presented by the Department of Justice. Or the President could have consulted the Senate and sought approval from an Intelligence committee. Or, as has been suggested elsewhere, the Department of Justice could have tried al-Awlaki in absentia, an extraordinary measure, but one lending at least some process to the killing. Other solutions may have been possible without the expenditure of much time and resources (and for which sufficient time clearly was available in view of the duration of this surveillance mission). But the President pursued none of them, proclaiming for the Executive an expanded power that would make the framers of the constitution shudder.
If the government can target its own citizens without even saying why to any duly-constituted body, what kind of republic do we have left?
Breakingnews
Well-Known Member
- Breakingnews Oct 07, 2011 at 07:05: AM
Breakingnews
Well-Known Member
Very well stated - It doesn't matter how much more excrement SPN wants to throw into the fan, this post pretty much closes the book on this thread.
Rack it.
libluvsbukkake
Well-Known Member
- libluvsbukkake Oct 07, 2011 at 09:01: AM
libluvsbukkake
Well-Known Member
One person's liberal is many others' useful idiot: the Doc Who Story.
So what you are saying is we just should have executed KSM?
What kind of freedom are Islamist extremists fighting for?
Yes, if Bush-Cheney had the balls they claimed to have, they would taken KSM out. President Obama did a much better job against terrorists, Bin Laden, Al Awlaki, who's next?
And yet the information we got from KSM lead to the killing of UBL.
That's the Bush-Cheney Faux news lie, not necessarily the truth since KSM was water boarded in 2003.But Bin Laden didn't move to Pakistan until 2008 or 2009, and to Abbottabad until 2010. That is a very long time line to believe that Bush Cheney had anything to do with the raid. Bush Cheney dropped the ball and should executed KSM right after they water boarded him. Can you spell failure?
I am having a hard time following your position here. Waterboarding you are against but executing you are for?
Same for you Breakingnews.
And you also aren't bothered by Odummy's little death squad that can decide to assassinate a US citizen without any review, but wiretapping terrorists had you all a flutter?
Vagitarian
Well-Known Member
- Vagitarian Oct 07, 2011 at 04:41: PM
Vagitarian
Well-Known Member
It's all bullshit - the far left libs don't like it and conservatives don't like it. Finally, they have something in common. It just goes to show you, you'll be damned no matter what you do.
Maybe we should have captured him and given free legal service and lodging and TV for the rest of his life? Then the two could have bitched some more.
I like it the terrorist is gone and don't give a fuck where he was born.
Maybe we should have another Congressional hearing? After all, lawyers love arguing and getting paid for it.
Maybe we should have captured him and given free legal service and lodging and TV for the rest of his life? Then the two could have bitched some more.
I like it the terrorist is gone and don't give a fuck where he was born.
Maybe we should have another Congressional hearing? After all, lawyers love arguing and getting paid for it.
Doc Who
Active Member
libluvsbukkake
Well-Known Member
- libluvsbukkake Oct 08, 2011 at 11:02: AM
libluvsbukkake
Well-Known Member
What's ironic, is that Maobama spent many years chastising the Bush Doctrine, and now he follows it to the letter. Too bad that he didn't copy more successful presidents on the economy. Dear Leader is on auto-pilot when it comes to foreign policy, thanks to what was put in place before he got there. This gives him more time to kill border agents with his fucked up gun-running scheme, and give loans to his bundlers for phony energy companies. What a guy.