It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, October 2nd, 2011 6:22am PDT - doublepromote requested by blankfist.

I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.

Why so surprised? Why so confused? They did it on 911 what makes you think they wouldn't do it again?

i think slippery slope is the phrase you're looking for... can we break the laws if other people do first .. something for the lawyers to argue while people die

What bothers me is that everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over an "American citizen" being killed under these circumstances.

What the hell? I want to see outrage over any targeted government assassination.

We are a strange egotistical people, we Americans.

>> ^blankfist:

It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote


Bin Laden's death was different than this how? I suppose that he wasn't an American citizen and that he allegedly had the opportunity to surrender during the firefight?

I agree with bareboards2 here in vehemently rejecting the whole special status of American citizens versus any other unlucky schmuck.

The whole 'confusion' is that the Whitehouse refuses to even acknowledge the assassination question, not even to deny it. Meanwhile the reporter assumes it as part of his questioning. The confusion is utterly intentional and deliberate on behalf of both parties. Politics are stupid, even when discussing vitally important matters.

What I want to compare these kind of events to is serving arrest warrants for criminals that refuse to be taken alive. Both Bin Laden and Awlaki would have been arrested the second they set foot on American soil. Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

>> ^Fade:

Why so surprised? Why so confused?


Y SO SRS?

I guess we have to wait for Obama to assassinate someone we like before we get a straight answer

>> ^bcglorf:


Bin Laden's death was different than this how? I suppose that he wasn't an American citizen and that he allegedly had the opportunity to surrender during the firefight?
I agree with bareboards2 here in vehemently rejecting the whole special status of American citizens versus any other unlucky schmuck.
The whole 'confusion' is that the Whitehouse refuses to even acknowledge the assassination question, not even to deny it. Meanwhile the reporter assumes it as part of his questioning. The confusion is utterly intentional and deliberate on behalf of both parties. Politics are stupid, even when discussing vitally important matters.
What I want to compare these kind of events to is serving arrest warrants for criminals that refuse to be taken alive. Both Bin Laden and Awlaki would have been arrested the second they set foot on American soil. Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.


Don't make assumptions, please. I spoke loudly over OBL's assassination. But in this particular case it's a very specific encroachment against the protections of the social contract (aka the Constitution), and that's what I'm talking about here. Specifically.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.


And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.


Have you typed his name into google?

Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?

1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?

2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.

You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.

I heard the White House Press Secretary will be turning old enough to drive next week.

There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.

First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.

The other question is...should this be legal?

Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".

The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.

But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

I think you'll find the main difference is that people who oppose all assassinations will find this argument gaining much more traction. Fight the battles that actually help your cause and all that.>> ^bcglorf:


Bin Laden's death was different than this how?

No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.

Just kidding.

On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers* lightly.

*(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

>> ^NetRunner:

There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics


Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.

Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.

By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


Wow. Thank god for the internet. If google says it's true it sure is. If google says the next guy on the street is a bad man i say let's sent some drones and kill him. just so, no judge. And there i was thinking of life as being so complicated. Have to get me some of those penis enlargement pills. google say they work just fine.

Wow, I expected Jacob Tapper to be dragged out by security at some point, those questions were really to the point.

Man QM, you have lightened up over these last few days! I like the new you! I'm going to upvote you even though I still disagree with you on other things.

>> ^quantumushroom:

No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

>> ^Duckman33:

I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.



I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.

If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.

Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.

If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?

If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?

>> ^conan:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.

Wow. Thank god for the internet. If google says it's true it sure is. If google says the next guy on the street is a bad man i say let's sent some drones and kill him. just so, no judge. And there i was thinking of life as being so complicated. Have to get me some of those penis enlargement pills. google say they work just fine.


Right, asking someone to do even the barest semblance of their own research into something is akin to 'the interweb told me so'.

Please enlighten, what burden of evidence has so convinced you of Obama's guilt, and can you be troubled to study that same source's information on Alwaki as well?

I know, gray areas are so uncomfortable for young idealists, but you really should try to see the shades between black and white.

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.

And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.

As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.

>> ^Duckman33:

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.
And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.
As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?



Your gonna go with 'people change'? Tell me, your study of Awlaki, did it include where he was and what he was doing when he died? Seems as though his past and present were still in harmony, no?

I'm all for asking Obama tough questions. Unfortunately the 'tough' questions being asked here are banal, obvious and easy to ask. It's the underlying problems that are hard. Instead of asking about the legalities and controversy around killing a mass murder in Yemen, maybe they could probe something both tougher and more helpful. Like what's his position on supporting a dictator in Yemen opposed by Al-Qaida dominated rebels? But it's more politically beneficial to ask the flashy and sexy questions about one dead bad guy.

>> ^blankfist:

Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.


Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.

This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.

It doesn't work that way.

Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.

It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

>> ^notarobot:

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.



I think your right on many of the questions towards the end, but the Socratic method still allows you to be stupefied by the answer...even if it is known

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

i don't remember congress declaring war
if so, on who?

this is murder by drone.

citizen. non-citizen. doesn't matter. this is murder.

we can say we are at war with a noun...but that's bullshit. We are picking wars of resource opportunity.
we are engaged in aggressive war. specifically the highest crime under the geneva convention. it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg.

>> ^criticalthud:

i don't remember congress declaring war
if so, on who?
this is murder by drone.
citizen. non-citizen. doesn't matter. this is murder.
we can say we are at war with a noun...but that's bullshit. We are picking wars of resource opportunity.
we are engaged in aggressive war. specifically the highest crime under the geneva convention. it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg.


Right, wars of resource opportunity. So Iraq's oil contracts could be sold to china on the open market. So that Awlaki will no longer stand in the way of America's insatiable hunger for Yemen's vast wealth of... sand?

Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?

>> ^NetRunner:

There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics


technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example

the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life

the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE

the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate

as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant

holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

>> ^packo:

>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)


You misunderstand.

It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.

The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.

You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Sorry @NetRunner, I have to disagree with you on this one. Have we actually declared war on Awlaki's organisation? I don't think so. And his US citizenship is very pertinent here. Next time it may be the executive branch deciding to take out a "domestic terrorist". Due process should be a right for all US citizens, it's enshrined in the constitution. Good on Jake Tapper, the guy's got big heroic journalist balls.

yes, we can debate laws and other agreements of questionable merit. but
i kind of think the US is acting like an asshole. our image worldwide is fucked.

does anyone not get that we militarily occupy their holy land? we got our fingers so deep in their pants. we declare war when it suits us, and we blast them with drones and gunships from afar - and, quite naturally, they see it as acts of cowardice.
and then we have headlines about killing the guy who made an underwear bomb that didn't work. whoopee, we killed the crotch-bomber. the world is safe. billions of dollars and a ruined world image, while we create 10 enemies for every one we kill. what a sick stupid joke.

>> ^quantumushroom:

No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).


If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...

nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.


I usually agree with you...but you're wrong here.

>> ^dag:

Sorry @NetRunner, I have to disagree with you on this one. Have we actually declared war on Awlaki's organisation? I don't think so. And his US citizenship is very pertinent here. Next time it may be the executive branch deciding to take out a "domestic terrorist". Due process should be a right for all US citizens, it's enshrined in the constitution. Good on Jake Tapper, the guy's got big heroic journalist balls.


"Awlaki's organization" is Al Qaeda. Technically the AUMF (what passes for declarations of war these days), was against "those responsible for the [9/11] attacks", aka Al Qaeda. So yes, we declared war.

And it's not the executive branch that decides who we're at war with, it's Congress. And Congress declared war on Al Qaeda.

But the upshot is that you don't disagree with me. I don't think this is right. I don't think this is the way the law should be. I don't think this is in keeping with our values or morals as they have been traditionally, and certainly not where I'd like them to be.

Like I said in my first comment though, these are separate questions. One is about what is, the other is about what should be.

I think being in denial about where we really are just gets in the way of coming up with cogent strategies for getting to where we should be.

A court case against this isn't some sort of slam dunk. In the current court environment, you're a lot more likely to see the courts validate its legality rather than repudiate it. Certainly the legal opinions of either blankfist or me aren't binding.

If you want a permanent fix, it needs to be legislative. It might even require a Constitutional amendment, especially if we wind up with a Scalia-led decision from the Supreme Court.

As Chris Hitchens writes at Sl
ate:

"As we engage with the horrible idea that our government claims the right to add its own citizens to a death list that is compiled by methods and standards unknown, we must concede that no government on earth faces such a temptation to invoke what I suppose we could call a doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense. Those who share my alarm at the prospect of this, and of the ways in which it could be abused, are under a heavy obligation to say what they would do instead."

About which part? That we don't criminally charge the enemy soldiers in a war before shooting them? That courts have generally upheld the Bush "it's a war, so I don't need to listen to Constitutional protections for criminals" view?

That it's a crappy way for things to be and that it should be changed?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^NetRunner:
Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

I usually agree with you...but you're wrong here.

@NetRunner
@bcglorf

I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).

The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.

As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.

BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.

EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."

Oh, and how did everyone miss *controversy ?

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by SDGundamX.

@bcglorf

Did you actually happen to read what I wrote? Or are you answering just to argue? First, I said he most likely hasn't changed. But people do. Second. How about this, you ask whatever the fuck questions you want to ask, and I'll ask whatever questions I want to ask. Because quite frankly what I do and what questions I ask is none of your concern.

It must be nice being you bc, you have the answers to everything no matter what the subject, and everyone else is wrong. Always. You are a man of the world so to speak. And no sorry to inform you, but I wouldn't ever want to be you. I don't always think I'm right and my opinion is gospel no matter what the subject.

^Duckman33

Can you edit the above so it's not quoting me on your words, I know you wanna be me, but I don't wanna be thought to be saying things you are saying.

>> ^bcglorf:

^Duckman33
Can you edit the above so it's not quoting me on your words, I know you wanna be me, but I don't wanna be thought to be saying things you are saying.


Wow posted that 2 seconds ago and you already replied? Stalk much?

>> ^SDGundamX:

@NetRunner
@bcglorf
I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).
The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.
As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.
BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.
EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."


I think all of us that don't outright oppose the death here are ALL agreed a court hearing and prosecution would have been infinitely preferable. We are saying the reality is that was NEVER going to happen, ever. In that reality, what do you do about a man supporting the murder of people from the safety of a lawless region of a country where anyone even suspected of sympathizing with our idea of law and order would be killed?

As was pointed out up thread, if you oppose this, propose an alternative?

Presumably not killing him, no? That means owning and accepting that he can act from Yemen's fringes with impunity trying to murder innocent civilians abroad, and the right course of action for us is not to act, even though we have the ability to stop him with a drone attack. Own that and we at least have a disagreement on the principles and not the fundamental facts and nature of the problem.

>> ^criticalthud:

yes, we can debate laws and other agreements of questionable merit. but
i kind of think the US is acting like an asshole. our image worldwide is fucked.
does anyone not get that we militarily occupy their holy land? we got our fingers so deep in their pants. we declare war when it suits us, and we blast them with drones and gunships from afar - and, quite naturally, they see it as acts of cowardice.
and then we have headlines about killing the guy who made an underwear bomb that didn't work. whoopee, we killed the crotch-bomber. the world is safe. billions of dollars and a ruined world image, while we create 10 enemies for every one we kill. what a sick stupid joke.


My 21yo cousin is hiking through Afghanistan with his M4. You call that cowardice?

Every day he's sending pictures of the kids' school he's protecting, or the land mines he's removing. Those Taliban types, they've sure got honor on their side.

@bmcs27 no i would call that a terrible waste of time. go ahead and look up the politics of landmines and you may be surprised at which country is both adamant about the production and continued use of them. and yeah, i've been to cambodia. another country we had absolutely no business sticking our nose into.

@NetRunner. "Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

why are we there? well, before we hated the taliban, we loved em. but either way they are still sitting on trillions in minerals and rare earth deposits.

but hey, lets pretend little johnny is over there ensuring our safety from further crotch-bombers.

and look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me...cause he keeps mumbling weird shit and motioning in my direction. I don't know, but this dude don't like me. could be my music taste. anyway, luckily, under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in preemptively planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?

or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bmcs27 no i would call that a terrible waste of time. go ahead and look up the politics of landmines and you may be surprised at which country is both adamant about the production and continued use of them. and yeah, i've been to cambodia. another country we had absolutely no business sticking our nose into.
@NetRunner. "Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.
why are we there? well, before we hated the taliban, we loved em. but either way they are still sitting on trillions in minerals and rare earth deposits.
but hey, lets pretend little johnny is over there ensuring our safety from further crotch-bombers.


Your dead right on Cambodia, after all the horrific things Kissinger's lackeys did to there they followed it up by supporting the Khmer Rouge.

On Al-Qaida, you are just flat wrong. Bin Laden came up with the name for his particular cult of international islamic jihadists.

You are also wrong on the Taliban. During the push to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan, the American's backed Pakistan and it's training of Afghan and imported mujahideen warriors. Those mujahideen warriors were NOT the Taliban, they were a disparate collection of all manner of different local and imported fighters. The Taliban were not the only group to come from this Pakistan and American backed crowd, so where the Northern Alliance fighters whom the Taliban sought to destroy. It's fun to make cheap comments like yours, but that doesn't make them accurate or true.

>> ^criticalthud:

look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me. And under the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?
or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.


You may need your eyes checked. Here are the two 'suspects' you are comparing:

1.Neighbor that looks suspicious, they maybe even wear a turban.
2.Man who's written multiple books and essays on how and why to wage Jihad against America on it's own streets. A man who we have phone records for his mentoring of a person that shot and killed multiple Americans on American soil.

Do those two look the same or remotely comparable to you? There's no question the precedent is troublesome, but you don't think your example is a touch.... extreme?

@bcglorf
cheap comments? dude, half the time all you do is throw out insults at people. I think we can all agree that you're kind of a dick

>> ^criticalthud:

@bcglorf
cheap comments? dude, half the time all you do is throw out insults at people. I think we can all agree that you're kind of a dick


Can you point me to an example?

I try to be pretty consistent in attacking peoples ideas and arguments without addressing the person. The closest I think I come to getting 'personal' is calling people out for holding foolish ideas. I'm not much for caring if it isn't PC to call truthers foolish for their beliefs.

I'm quite happy to admit I've been a fool and idiot in the past with my own ideas, and probably hold many now unbeknownst to myself yet. I find the fastest way to discover those is to stick to my guns on the stuff I think I understand until someone corrects me. In point of fact, I was right onside with 'you guys' up until I started listening to Hitchens assessments and discovered all the reasoning and evidence I was so proud of was all so much BS. I cheered when my country's PM refused to go into Iraq, I was proud of his principled stand. Now I'm ashamed I was a fool. I'm open to having my mind changed yet again, but nobody's yet brought up anything new to change it.

The obvious undercurrent here is that there is sensitive information which could be exposed by talking about the specifics of the targeting. It is often hard to tell what an enemy could glean from a public airing of "what we know." For instance, they might be able to figure out "how we know it." In this case the high-school debate champ behind the podium did the right thing in erring on the side of prudence. Further, he's probably on a very short leash. That there is such an uproar to protect the rights of this fuckwad with little attempt to suppress it suggests that the terrorists have not, in fact, won.

@bcglorf
why i'd be happy to. scroll up! and i'll quote:
"Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?"

you might find that your ideas and opinions have a better impact when not accompanied by an insult. but hey, that's just me.

and when our government is murdering people, in our name, I tend to have somewhat high standards
...or maybe the word of our government is good enough? a quick glance at history reveals that our government has absolutely no problem saying whatever need to say in order to create a certain perception and keep business dealings draped in the american flag.
But if you haven't noticed, our government is largely run by corporate special interests, and they act according to those interests, not ours.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bcglorf
why i'd be happy to. scroll up! and i'll quote:
"Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?"
you might find that your ideas and opinions have a better impact when not accompanied by an insult. but hey, that's just me.
and when our government is murdering people, in our name, I tend to have somewhat high standards
...or maybe the word of our government is good enough? a quick glance at history reveals that our government has absolutely no problem saying whatever need to say in order to create a certain perception and keep business dealings draped in the american flag.
But if you haven't noticed, our government is largely run by corporate special interests, and they act according to those interests, not ours.


I class what I said as categorizing your comments and not your person. I believe you finished with "it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg". I class that incoherent and childish whining.

Meanwhile, immediately after complaining about how insulting my own language is, you state as matter of fact that the government is murdering people...

Sorry, I am responding to comments likening Obama to Hitler, Americans to nazis, and at the same time insisting that innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt be the standard applied to self admitted terrorists. You aught not be surprised by the vehemence with I reject this ludicrous and disgusting double standard.

@bcglorf
well one thing is for sure, you can't admit when you're wrong. as such, conversing with you is a waste of time. goodbye.

>> ^criticalthud:

"Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

I'm the one who used the name Al Qaeda. The AUMF says this:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

@NetRunner
right on. true enough, it is certainly where we are at.
I'm not an obama hater. (dissapointed, yes!), but i spent many years as a lawyer, working inside the system, trotting on the hamster wheel and even spending some time in the fed judiciary. I could go on a long tirade about how things are done in the legal world, but i'll just say that i'm an ex-attorney for a reason. Obama, like all presidents before him, has gladfully continued executive power-grabs created by the prior presidents. Balance of power is a joke. And the people have been completely left out of the political process. Decisions are made, and then the propaganda machine goes to work.

There is really no doubt we are in violation of international laws. but we do it all the time, cause hey, we're america and we do whatever the fuck we want.
legalities.... meh. the law is for sale.

i'm looking more at the overall mindset and complacency of a populace that is arguing about the legal semantics of killing it's own citizens in sovereign nations, while the rulers of this country blatantly run it into the ground.

and doesn't anyone recall how our government lied its way into Iraq? Have things really changed?

thanks for the well thought and written posts.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

Thanks, Dudes! I'm still about the same, tho.


>> ^MonkeySpank:

Man QM, you have lightened up over these last few days! I like the new you! I'm going to upvote you even though I still disagree with you on other things.
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

~For Packo
declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention

For which I believe Bush, Cheney and their entire entourage should be brought up on war crimes charges over. Cheney shouldn't even get a trial, he's written a bloody book staunchly defending his use of torture which should be enough to skip the conviction and get straight on to sentencing.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who"

I was responding to your declaration that it's not really war. I believe whether we call it a war or not is more than just semantics. The jihadists like Al-Qaida have been calling it war for their part since long before 9/11 finally made it a mutual declaration.

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems
I'm not saying it's their responsibility so much as recognizing that there are instances where western self interest happens to coincide with solving problems. It's vitally important difference.

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

I agree with your sentiments on extremism and the environment in the Middle East being the key. I must ask though if a Middle East with Afghanistan still ruled by the Taliban and Iraq still ruled by Saddam really make a better environment for putting an end to extremism. I see the evidence being very strongly against it. Additionally, I don't see any way of improving Saddam era Iraq's environment without the use force. I don't think those are terribly radical and unfathomable statements, yet it seems most here seem not only content to reject it without evidence, but in the face any evidence and without any need for a defense either.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding..

I still prefer it to Bush's stubborn insistence to explain everything to the public as though they were children. I believe Awlaki's past and present actions were expected to stand somewhat one their own, without really needing anyone to hold people's hand and explain to them what it meant to write books promoting Jihad in America and mentorship of a man that went on to kill for that very cause. I also believe they again don't feel they'll have much luck explaining why capturing an Al-Qaida operative in Yemen was going to be difficult for anyone that didn't already grasp that on their own.

I've already agreed up thread that the precedent is worrisome, but so is the alternative. I could have respected if Obama had come out and instead of announcing Awlaki's death had announced that he had the opportunity to assassinate him, and chose not to as a matter of ethics. I doubt however that his presidency could have survived such a moral move. He'd last until Awlaki's next attack before the Reps and Dems wanting his place would have people running him out of office for failing to protect the nation.

My real problem and raging here is at those content to convict and condemn Obama, but insistent that Awlaki be deemed innocent until the absolute highest bar of proof be satisfied.

My real problem and raging is those raving as though bombing Cambodia into the stone ages and backing the Khmer Rouge in those ashes is morally equivalent to the removal of Saddam's regime in Iraq and the holding of free elections there.

As though those indignities weren't enough, those same claimants then want to believe that they are the ones truly studying and seeing the shades of gray involved in these matters.

It's more than should be tolerated by any thinking person that cares enough to take these things seriously.

@NetRunner

"In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court."

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court. As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

As far as what is defined as a battlefield, clearly the government grossly abuses the term. See for instance: http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf If the family does sue, I'm sure as you implied that the government will claim al-Awlaki was killed on the field of battle, but I think they'd have a tough time convincing a judge of this--last I checked we weren't at war with Yemen. Unless the government could show that he was in car equipped with a bomb headed towards an embassy or something like that. However that would, of course, force the government to actually disclose the details of the killing and the factual reasons for it.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.

As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.

>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.

But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.

For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".

You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.

A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.

But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.

The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^SDGundamX:
I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.
As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.
>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.
I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.
But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.
For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".
You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.
A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.
But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.
The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.


The trouble is it doesn't quite work to lump things as either law enforcement or uniformed soldiers at war. That works only in as far as it makes sense to pursue criminals through domestic and foreign law enforcement, or to make war on foreign nations refusing to enforce the rule of law. Due to myriad political bramble bushes, there are many nations like Pakistan and Yemen who claim much broader borders than those in which their actual loyal police officers can safely operate. When criminals hide in the tribal regions of Yemen and Pakistan, even willing and co-operative governments in Pakistan and Yemen are unable to enforce the law on the criminals we want prosecuted. Do we just leave those criminals be then? Do we declare uniformed soldier on soldier war against the governments in Pakistan and Yemen? Do we demand they restart the aborted civil wars that have left their tribal regions effectively autonomous independent nations?

In my opinion the tribal regions in places like Yemen and Pakistan are effectively not sovereign parts of those nations. It's not politically expedient to declare that, but it is the way Pakistani and Yemeni governments have been handling and treating the regions all along. They are for all intents and purposes independent nations, which merely pay lip service to being a part of Pakistan or Yemen while jockeying internally for a stronger position for themselves. I see American policy as effectively stepping in and treating those tribal regions as independent nations, rather than as Yemeni or Pakistani territory. Thus America is at open war with these tribal regions for their support of Al-Qaida jihadists.

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.

It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.

And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.

Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.

I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...

And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

>> ^NetRunner:

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.


The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.

You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.


And what is the root of this terrorism?

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.

Did Dick Cheney put that guy on trial before he shot him in the face?

Who would've guessed? The usual suspects apologizing for government sanctioned murder.

Secret panel can put Americans on ‘kill list’ without any oversight
The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
Abse
nce of Evidence: The Progressive Policy of Imperial Murder
Obama Provides Terrorists a Safe Haven While Hailing Death of Al-Awlaki

"I have nothing further to add"

Coming from you, those words are downright inspiring.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile

Don't tell my heart, my Al-awlaki heart
Cause jihad the libs don't understand
And since you told my heart, my Al-awlaki heart
A drone locked on and killed this man

>> ^quantumushroom:

You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile



It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.

Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.

Of course you need to resort to threats of violence. Logic and reason are locked doors to you, ninnyhammer.

Is this what the lefties are talking about by "death by drone," your droning on and on between schoolyard insults?

Even you probably know threats = banned. I won't consider sending this little exchange to dag, as I don't consider you at all.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile


It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.
Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Of course you need to resort to threats of violence. Logic and reason are locked doors to you, ninnyhammer.
Is this what the lefties are talking about by "death by drone," your droning on and on between schoolyard insults?
Even you probably know threats = banned. I won't consider sending this little exchange to dag, as I don't consider you at all.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile


It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.
Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.



At no point did I threaten violence...did you fail reading comprehension as well?