ACLU got one right?

[Jeremy]

This thread is fucking rediculous.
Here's a hypothetical........

Five jihadists are running toward a forward operating base in Astan firing their weapons at the troops. Unbeknownst to the soldiers one is a US citizen. According to some that have posted here, the troops should yell "STOP! Let me see your papers. Your under arrest!!". So, now you just have dead soldiers and a bunch of liberals that go to bed happy. Oh, if only it was a perfect liberal world....

 

[Tech_Esq]

This thread is fucking rediculous.
Here's a hypothetical........

Five jihadists are running toward a forward operating base in Astan firing their weapons at the troops. Unbeknownst to the soldiers one is a US citizen. According to some that have posted here, the troops should yell "STOP! Let me see your papers. Your under arrest!!". So, now you just have dead soldiers and a bunch of liberals that go to bed happy. Oh, if only it was a perfect liberal world....

No, I don't think anyone is saying that. In your hypothetical, you open up with everything you have. If they are on the battlefield, it's open season.

The distinction is, do you go hunt them down with a Delta team (or a drone) and execute them because they are who they are? (As opposed to what they are doing -- in your hypo -- executing an attack against an American outpost.)

 

[Jeremy]

This thread is fucking rediculous.
Here's a hypothetical........

Five jihadists are running toward a forward operating base in Astan firing their weapons at the troops. Unbeknownst to the soldiers one is a US citizen. According to some that have posted here, the troops should yell "STOP! Let me see your papers. Your under arrest!!". So, now you just have dead soldiers and a bunch of liberals that go to bed happy. Oh, if only it was a perfect liberal world....

No, I don't think anyone is saying that. In your hypothetical, you open up with everything you have. If they are on the battlefield, it's open season.

The distinction is, do you go hunt them down with a Delta team (or a drone) and execute them because they are who they are? (As opposed to what they are doing -- in your hypo -- executing an attack against an American outpost.)

Depends on the evidence against the individual. If they are cohorting with known terrorists and planning an imminent attack. Than they are fair game for a hellfire missle. Let the ACLU and admin fight it out in court afterwords. If its just an innocent American traveling in Pakistan, than I think the answer is pretty obvious.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Not sure i agree. I just read where the ACLU has now decided to step up their defense efforts for Al Qaeda Terrorists. Gotta love the ACLU...Or do ya?

 

[Jeremy]

Not sure i agree. I just read where the ACLU has now decided to step up their defense efforts for Al Qaeda Terrorists. Gotta love the ACLU...Or do ya?

As much as I love an eye dropper filled with Tobasco sauce.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I heard the ACLU is filing against Obama as CiC for targeting a US citizen who has been deemed as a terrorist and living in Pakistan.
Apparently, he is on that list...the list the drones are used to take out memebers of.

I doubt Obama would do it if he were not sure, but should any US citizen EVER be accused of, found guilty of, and executed for anything without due process?

Now, before you jump down my throat....lets look at this MADE UP scenario...

I emphasize...MADE UP and I am in no way saying Obama would do it....but hear me out..

Bill O'reilly has been to Pakistand, A-stan and Iraq many times. What if THAT was the evidence Obama claimed to have that he is engaging in terrorist activity and Oreilly was taken out for it....

Afterall, we all know Obama's numbers may be a little better without Oreilly....not saying Obama would do it....but think about it.

I think the ACLU got this one right.

Thoughts?

I think you're an idiot. Al-Awlaki is an enemy to this country and does not deserve due process. He should be stripped of his citizenship then killed.

Funny. I disagree with you but I dont think you are an idiot.
I dont have an issue with him being killed on the battlefield. But I do have an issue with the CiC deciding what US citizens should die via assasination and which ones shouldn't.
I agree with using the predator drones...but that is assasination...and no one American has the right to decide what US citizen warrants assasination.

Under a 1940 statute that is still in force, the government can de-nationalize citizens who serve in a foreign military; vote in a foreign election; swear allegiance to, hold office, or naturalize in a foreign state; expressly renounce their citizenship before certain U.S. officials; or conspire to make war against the nation.

 

[Jarhead]

I think you're an idiot. Al-Awlaki is an enemy to this country and does not deserve due process. He should be stripped of his citizenship then killed.

Funny. I disagree with you but I dont think you are an idiot.
I dont have an issue with him being killed on the battlefield. But I do have an issue with the CiC deciding what US citizens should die via assasination and which ones shouldn't.
I agree with using the predator drones...but that is assasination...and no one American has the right to decide what US citizen warrants assasination.

Under a 1940 statute that is still in force, the government can de-nationalize citizens who serve in a foreign military; vote in a foreign election; swear allegiance to, hold office, or naturalize in a foreign state; expressly renounce their citizenship before certain U.S. officials; or conspire to make war against the nation.

Yes. I know.
Now who is the one to make the decision that a US citizen is conspiring to make wa against our great nation?
Do you believe Obama has the right to make that decision based on the intel he gets?
Bush got hoards of intel that there were WMD's in Iraq. Were there?
You want a man, be it Obama or anyone of any party to have the right to decide he does not like someone so he issues the order to put him on a list to be assasinated?
Sorry. I am starting to see how a President can convince people of things that aren't. I mean, look at this board. Obama has many people believing that the stimulus is working better than expected. He has many people fighting on his side tooth and nail saying that he is doing a great job with the borders. Heck, he had half the country believing that the GOP did not come up with a single idea for healthcare reform even AFTER they saw the GOP offering ideas on TV.
Dam....SNL convinced people like Zona on this board that Palin said that she can see Russia from her house.
Nope. Not a good idea. US citizens deserve the right to due process unless they take action themselves such as "denouncing their citizenship".
And before you jump down my throat....did you personally see that guy do anything that implies he is conspiring military action against our great country...or is it strictly based on what you have heard?

 

[Tech_Esq]

This thread is fucking rediculous.
Here's a hypothetical........

Five jihadists are running toward a forward operating base in Astan firing their weapons at the troops. Unbeknownst to the soldiers one is a US citizen. According to some that have posted here, the troops should yell "STOP! Let me see your papers. Your under arrest!!". So, now you just have dead soldiers and a bunch of liberals that go to bed happy. Oh, if only it was a perfect liberal world....

No, I don't think anyone is saying that. In your hypothetical, you open up with everything you have. If they are on the battlefield, it's open season.

The distinction is, do you go hunt them down with a Delta team (or a drone) and execute them because they are who they are? (As opposed to what they are doing -- in your hypo -- executing an attack against an American outpost.)

Depends on the evidence against the individual. If they are cohorting with known terrorists and planning an imminent attack. Than they are fair game for a hellfire missle. Let the ACLU and admin fight it out in court afterwords. If its just an innocent American traveling in Pakistan, than I think the answer is pretty obvious.

So what if it is neither of those?

There is nothing imminent about what they are doing, so there are no exigent circumstances. But, the guy is by no means innocent. There is very solid and reliable evidence that the guy is oh, I don't know, let's say he's training the terrorist how to build bigger, better, badder bombs. So, he's definitely a bad guy, but if he gets taken out next week or next month, it doesn't really make a lot of difference. Some, but not a lot.

Then, what would you have done?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I think you're an idiot. Al-Awlaki is an enemy to this country and does not deserve due process. He should be stripped of his citizenship then killed.

Funny. I disagree with you but I dont think you are an idiot.
I dont have an issue with him being killed on the battlefield. But I do have an issue with the CiC deciding what US citizens should die via assasination and which ones shouldn't.
I agree with using the predator drones...but that is assasination...and no one American has the right to decide what US citizen warrants assasination.

Under a 1940 statute that is still in force, the government can de-nationalize citizens who serve in a foreign military; vote in a foreign election; swear allegiance to, hold office, or naturalize in a foreign state; expressly renounce their citizenship before certain U.S. officials; or conspire to make war against the nation.

That sounds pretty good, but I don't think these guys fall under that. Another situation where the fact that this terrorism is stateless makes some of our laws antiquated. Do you think the 1940 law needs to be updated to deal with stateless terrorists?

 

[zzzz]

I heard the ACLU is filing against Obama as CiC for targeting a US citizen who has been deemed as a terrorist and living in Pakistan.
Apparently, he is on that list...the list the drones are used to take out memebers of.

I doubt Obama would do it if he were not sure, but should any US citizen EVER be accused of, found guilty of, and executed for anything without due process?

Now, before you jump down my throat....lets look at this MADE UP scenario...

I emphasize...MADE UP and I am in no way saying Obama would do it....but hear me out..

Bill O'reilly has been to Pakistand, A-stan and Iraq many times. What if THAT was the evidence Obama claimed to have that he is engaging in terrorist activity and Oreilly was taken out for it....

Afterall, we all know Obama's numbers may be a little better without Oreilly....not saying Obama would do it....but think about it.

I think the ACLU got this one right.

Thoughts?

If a US citizen is engaged in subversive activities against the United States and the citizen is beyond the police powers of the US other methods need to be utilized. Whether the President needs to give authority for a termination or not seems to me to be too much bureaucracy. The only agency in the US government who should have termination authority is the CIA and that should only be in a foreign country and in extraordinary circumstances. It should be the CIA Directors call not the President.

As to American citizens engaged in subversive activities on the battlefield or in a theater of war such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, the military should have authority to take out targets of opportunity that have been deemed hostile. And this includes US citizens and any other people that are hostile to the US. When you leave this country some rights you have as a citizen are put in abeyance.

The point is that whereas we know this guy is involved in subversive activities, it is not us, the people, that is authorizing the assasination. Yes, we know this man is guilty becuase he is all over the media.....but what about one on the list that we, the people know nothing about...what about someone that the President, be it Obama, Bush, CLinton, or anyone decides should be on the list based on his own hunch he came up with looking at some cherry picked intelligence?

He dubbed the police stupid based on a hunch.
He had Sherrod fired based on a hunch.
Bush apparently invaded Iraq based on a hunch.

Should the Presdinet have the popwer to assasinate US ciotizens based on a hunch?

No one should be terminated because of a hunch! No should be arrested on a hunch either. There has to be a protocol for such an action and the CIA is the preferred agency for those actions. Historicaly they conducted terminations or had them contracted out. The President should not have any involvment within that protocol.

We, the people, elected BO to conduct foreign policy and to protect this country. We are a representative government not a democracy. We elect people to postitions and what they do or say is an extension of us. If they are idiots then that makes us idiots too!

 

[Jarhead]

If a US citizen is engaged in subversive activities against the United States and the citizen is beyond the police powers of the US other methods need to be utilized. Whether the President needs to give authority for a termination or not seems to me to be too much bureaucracy. The only agency in the US government who should have termination authority is the CIA and that should only be in a foreign country and in extraordinary circumstances. It should be the CIA Directors call not the President.

As to American citizens engaged in subversive activities on the battlefield or in a theater of war such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, the military should have authority to take out targets of opportunity that have been deemed hostile. And this includes US citizens and any other people that are hostile to the US. When you leave this country some rights you have as a citizen are put in abeyance.

The point is that whereas we know this guy is involved in subversive activities, it is not us, the people, that is authorizing the assasination. Yes, we know this man is guilty becuase he is all over the media.....but what about one on the list that we, the people know nothing about...what about someone that the President, be it Obama, Bush, CLinton, or anyone decides should be on the list based on his own hunch he came up with looking at some cherry picked intelligence?

He dubbed the police stupid based on a hunch.
He had Sherrod fired based on a hunch.
Bush apparently invaded Iraq based on a hunch.

Should the Presdinet have the popwer to assasinate US ciotizens based on a hunch?

No one should be terminated because of a hunch! No should be arrested on a hunch either. There has to be a protocol for such an action and the CIA is the preferred agency for those actions. Historicaly they conducted terminations or had them contracted out. The President should not have any involvment within that protocol.

We, the people, elected BO to conduct foreign policy and to protect this country. We are a representative government not a democracy. We elect people to postitions and what they do or say is an extension of us. If they are idiots then that makes us idiots too!

Well then, I guess we are idiots.

 

[Jeremy]

No, I don't think anyone is saying that. In your hypothetical, you open up with everything you have. If they are on the battlefield, it's open season.

The distinction is, do you go hunt them down with a Delta team (or a drone) and execute them because they are who they are? (As opposed to what they are doing -- in your hypo -- executing an attack against an American outpost.)

Depends on the evidence against the individual. If they are cohorting with known terrorists and planning an imminent attack. Than they are fair game for a hellfire missle. Let the ACLU and admin fight it out in court afterwords. If its just an innocent American traveling in Pakistan, than I think the answer is pretty obvious.

So what if it is neither of those?

There is nothing imminent about what they are doing, so there are no exigent circumstances. But, the guy is by no means innocent. There is very solid and reliable evidence that the guy is oh, I don't know, let's say he's training the terrorist how to build bigger, better, badder bombs. So, he's definitely a bad guy, but if he gets taken out next week or next month, it doesn't really make a lot of difference. Some, but not a lot.

Then, what would you have done?

I suppose we could tell the Pakistanis to arrest him and extradite him.

Guilt by association...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Funny. I disagree with you but I dont think you are an idiot.
I dont have an issue with him being killed on the battlefield. But I do have an issue with the CiC deciding what US citizens should die via assasination and which ones shouldn't.
I agree with using the predator drones...but that is assasination...and no one American has the right to decide what US citizen warrants assasination.

Under a 1940 statute that is still in force, the government can de-nationalize citizens who serve in a foreign military; vote in a foreign election; swear allegiance to, hold office, or naturalize in a foreign state; expressly renounce their citizenship before certain U.S. officials; or conspire to make war against the nation.

Yes. I know.
Now who is the one to make the decision that a US citizen is conspiring to make wa against our great nation?
Do you believe Obama has the right to make that decision based on the intel he gets?
Bush got hoards of intel that there were WMD's in Iraq. Were there?
You want a man, be it Obama or anyone of any party to have the right to decide he does not like someone so he issues the order to put him on a list to be assasinated?
Sorry. I am starting to see how a President can convince people of things that aren't. I mean, look at this board. Obama has many people believing that the stimulus is working better than expected. He has many people fighting on his side tooth and nail saying that he is doing a great job with the borders. Heck, he had half the country believing that the GOP did not come up with a single idea for healthcare reform even AFTER they saw the GOP offering ideas on TV.
Dam....SNL convinced people like Zona on this board that Palin said that she can see Russia from her house.
Nope. Not a good idea. US citizens deserve the right to due process unless they take action themselves such as "denouncing their citizenship".
And before you jump down my throat....did you personally see that guy do anything that implies he is conspiring military action against our great country...or is it strictly based on what you have heard?

Well they have this little thing called "evidence" that shows Awlaki has conspired to kill American citizens. Case in point: Three days after Hasan’s shooting spree, Awlaki posted on his website:

"Nidal is a hero. … He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. … Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal. … The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed."

•The U.S. government now recognizes Awlaki as a direct threat to national security because of his ability to inspire radical Islamists to commit violent acts and because of indications that Awlaki has moved beyond the role of a propagandist. Analysts credit Awlaki with an ability to recruit potential terrorists into the ranks of such organizations as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Militant Islam's Global Preacher: The Radicalizing Effect of Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki | Critical Threats

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Funny. I disagree with you but I dont think you are an idiot.
I dont have an issue with him being killed on the battlefield. But I do have an issue with the CiC deciding what US citizens should die via assasination and which ones shouldn't.
I agree with using the predator drones...but that is assasination...and no one American has the right to decide what US citizen warrants assasination.

Under a 1940 statute that is still in force, the government can de-nationalize citizens who serve in a foreign military; vote in a foreign election; swear allegiance to, hold office, or naturalize in a foreign state; expressly renounce their citizenship before certain U.S. officials; or conspire to make war against the nation.

That sounds pretty good, but I don't think these guys fall under that. Another situation where the fact that this terrorism is stateless makes some of our laws antiquated. Do you think the 1940 law needs to be updated to deal with stateless terrorists?

You don't think Awlaki is conspiring to make war against Americans and/or America?

 

[Jarhead]

Under a 1940 statute that is still in force, the government can de-nationalize citizens who serve in a foreign military; vote in a foreign election; swear allegiance to, hold office, or naturalize in a foreign state; expressly renounce their citizenship before certain U.S. officials; or conspire to make war against the nation.

Yes. I know.
Now who is the one to make the decision that a US citizen is conspiring to make wa against our great nation?
Do you believe Obama has the right to make that decision based on the intel he gets?
Bush got hoards of intel that there were WMD's in Iraq. Were there?
You want a man, be it Obama or anyone of any party to have the right to decide he does not like someone so he issues the order to put him on a list to be assasinated?
Sorry. I am starting to see how a President can convince people of things that aren't. I mean, look at this board. Obama has many people believing that the stimulus is working better than expected. He has many people fighting on his side tooth and nail saying that he is doing a great job with the borders. Heck, he had half the country believing that the GOP did not come up with a single idea for healthcare reform even AFTER they saw the GOP offering ideas on TV.
Dam....SNL convinced people like Zona on this board that Palin said that she can see Russia from her house.
Nope. Not a good idea. US citizens deserve the right to due process unless they take action themselves such as "denouncing their citizenship".
And before you jump down my throat....did you personally see that guy do anything that implies he is conspiring military action against our great country...or is it strictly based on what you have heard?

Well they have this little thing called "evidence" that shows Awlaki has conspired to kill American citizens. Case in point: Three days after Hasan’s shooting spree, Awlaki posted on his website:

"Nidal is a hero. … He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. … Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal. … The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed."

•The U.S. government now recognizes Awlaki as a direct threat to national security because of his ability to inspire radical Islamists to commit violent acts and because of indications that Awlaki has moved beyond the role of a propagandist. Analysts credit Awlaki with an ability to recruit potential terrorists into the ranks of such organizations as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Militant Islam's Global Preacher: The Radicalizing Effect of Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki | Critical Threats

You are missing my point so I assume I am not articulating it properly.

I understand that this situation has evidence that can be deemed as indisputable.

But what if it wasnt? What if the CiC saw it as indisputable, but you and many others wouldnt if you saw the same evidence?

Afterall, the CiC sees the stimulus as working BETTER than expected. Do you?

CIA and other intel saw that there were WMD's in Iraq. Were there?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Depends on the evidence against the individual. If they are cohorting with known terrorists and planning an imminent attack. Than they are fair game for a hellfire missle. Let the ACLU and admin fight it out in court afterwords. If its just an innocent American traveling in Pakistan, than I think the answer is pretty obvious.

So what if it is neither of those?

There is nothing imminent about what they are doing, so there are no exigent circumstances. But, the guy is by no means innocent. There is very solid and reliable evidence that the guy is oh, I don't know, let's say he's training the terrorist how to build bigger, better, badder bombs. So, he's definitely a bad guy, but if he gets taken out next week or next month, it doesn't really make a lot of difference. Some, but not a lot.

Then, what would you have done?

I suppose we could tell the Pakistanis to arrest him and extradite him.

Guilt by association...

What if he's in Yemen?

You see that's the problem. We need a way to use extreme prejudice, but the current procedure is insufficient.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes. I know.
Now who is the one to make the decision that a US citizen is conspiring to make wa against our great nation?
Do you believe Obama has the right to make that decision based on the intel he gets?
Bush got hoards of intel that there were WMD's in Iraq. Were there?
You want a man, be it Obama or anyone of any party to have the right to decide he does not like someone so he issues the order to put him on a list to be assasinated?
Sorry. I am starting to see how a President can convince people of things that aren't. I mean, look at this board. Obama has many people believing that the stimulus is working better than expected. He has many people fighting on his side tooth and nail saying that he is doing a great job with the borders. Heck, he had half the country believing that the GOP did not come up with a single idea for healthcare reform even AFTER they saw the GOP offering ideas on TV.
Dam....SNL convinced people like Zona on this board that Palin said that she can see Russia from her house.
Nope. Not a good idea. US citizens deserve the right to due process unless they take action themselves such as "denouncing their citizenship".
And before you jump down my throat....did you personally see that guy do anything that implies he is conspiring military action against our great country...or is it strictly based on what you have heard?

Well they have this little thing called "evidence" that shows Awlaki has conspired to kill American citizens. Case in point: Three days after Hasan’s shooting spree, Awlaki posted on his website:

"Nidal is a hero. … He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. … Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal. … The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed."

•The U.S. government now recognizes Awlaki as a direct threat to national security because of his ability to inspire radical Islamists to commit violent acts and because of indications that Awlaki has moved beyond the role of a propagandist. Analysts credit Awlaki with an ability to recruit potential terrorists into the ranks of such organizations as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Militant Islam's Global Preacher: The Radicalizing Effect of Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki | Critical Threats

You are missing my point so I assume I am not articulating it properly.

I understand that this situation has evidence that can be deemed as indisputable.

But what if it wasnt? What if the CiC saw it as indisputable, but you and many others wouldnt if you saw the same evidence?

Afterall, the CiC sees the stimulus as working BETTER than expected. Do you?

CIA and other intel saw that there were WMD's in Iraq. Were there?

What if a frog had wings. Would it bump it's ass on the ground when it hopped?

I don't play the "what if" game, I'm speaking about the facts as we know them. Fact: Awlaki is conspiring to kill Americans. Fact: The ACLU is hellbent on defending him.

Obama can say whatever the fuck he wants, the evidence will either prove him right or wrong. In the case of the economy he may see it as "better than expected" and that's because he obviously thought it should be in worse shape.

 

[Jarhead]

Well they have this little thing called "evidence" that shows Awlaki has conspired to kill American citizens. Case in point: Three days after Hasan’s shooting spree, Awlaki posted on his website:

"Nidal is a hero. … He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. … Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal. … The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed."

•The U.S. government now recognizes Awlaki as a direct threat to national security because of his ability to inspire radical Islamists to commit violent acts and because of indications that Awlaki has moved beyond the role of a propagandist. Analysts credit Awlaki with an ability to recruit potential terrorists into the ranks of such organizations as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Militant Islam's Global Preacher: The Radicalizing Effect of Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki | Critical Threats

You are missing my point so I assume I am not articulating it properly.

I understand that this situation has evidence that can be deemed as indisputable.

But what if it wasnt? What if the CiC saw it as indisputable, but you and many others wouldnt if you saw the same evidence?

Afterall, the CiC sees the stimulus as working BETTER than expected. Do you?

CIA and other intel saw that there were WMD's in Iraq. Were there?

What if a frog had wings. Would it bump it's ass on the ground when it hopped?

I don't play the "what if" game, I'm speaking about the facts as we know them. Fact: Awlaki is conspiring to kill Americans. Fact: The ACLU is hellbent on defending him.

Obama can say whatever the fuck he wants, the evidence will either prove him right or wrong. In the case of the economy he may see it as "better than expected" and that's because he obviously thought it should be in worse shape.

I respect your sentiment.

However, tyo ignore what-if can be dangerous when it comes to allowing supreme decisions.

Yes, it may be warranted now. But the precedent will be set it it may be used when it is not warranted.

Have a great weekend.

 

[Father Time]

I heard the ACLU is filing against Obama as CiC for targeting a US citizen who has been deemed as a terrorist and living in Pakistan.
Apparently, he is on that list...the list the drones are used to take out memebers of.

I doubt Obama would do it if he were not sure, but should any US citizen EVER be accused of, found guilty of, and executed for anything without due process?

Now, before you jump down my throat....lets look at this MADE UP scenario...

I emphasize...MADE UP and I am in no way saying Obama would do it....but hear me out..

Bill O'reilly has been to Pakistand, A-stan and Iraq many times. What if THAT was the evidence Obama claimed to have that he is engaging in terrorist activity and Oreilly was taken out for it....

Afterall, we all know Obama's numbers may be a little better without Oreilly....not saying Obama would do it....but think about it.

I think the ACLU got this one right.

Thoughts?

I think you're an idiot. Al-Awlaki is an enemy to this country and does not deserve due process. He should be stripped of his citizenship then killed.

So you can psychicly tell who's an enemy of this country without due process or a trial?

Why haven't you taken the million dollar psychic challenge?

 

[Father Time]

I think you're an idiot. Al-Awlaki is an enemy to this country and does not deserve due process. He should be stripped of his citizenship then killed.

figures a neocon douchebag would be okay with the president singling out citizens to be killed. you really are scum

Like liberal producer Sarah Spitz wishing Limbaugh would die of a heart attack...
or
Chris Mtthews

Wishing someone would die is not the same as actually trying to kill them.