Cain against assassinate American citizens that are terrorists

[CT9]

Stick a fork in Herman, he's done.

If the president didnt have that authority then the Civil War could never have been waged.

I'm pretty sure the Confederate act of Fort Sumter alleviates any relevance from what Cain is talking about to what you are saying

Completely different scenarios, all people want is due process with or without him their. I'm sure some ACLU lawyer would pick up the case trying to make a name for himself...

 

[The Rabbi]

So wait, you admit you don't know what actually happened then you tell he was a combatant... Sooooo, do you have the scoop of "what happened" or not? Was he shooting at Americans or not?

He was an enemy combatant. He declared himself such. He committed acts of war against the U.S. Why is this difficult to understand?

So put him on trial, why do you not agree with the Fifth Amendment on this? What was his "act of war" against the US anyways? Was he in the process of killing US citizens the NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW ABOUT?

The “War on Terror” is not actually a war, so there is no battle ground supported by our constitution…

We bombed German and Japanese barracks and installations in WW2 and killed many soldiers, some of whom were probably American citizens. I'll bet they weren't pointing guns at us at the time. They didn't require a trial because it was a war, not a crime. 5A is about criminal procedure. There was no crime committed here.

 

[Avorysuds]

So wait, you admit you don't know what actually happened then you tell he was a combatant... Sooooo, do you have the scoop of "what happened" or not? Was he shooting at Americans or not?

He was an enemy combatant. He declared himself such. He committed acts of war against the U.S. Why is this difficult to understand?

oh enemy combatant....How i do love your subjective term that people adopted in order to skirt the rules.

enemy combatant legal definition of enemy combatant. enemy combatant synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

According to the articles of the convention, a lawful combatant must be part of an organized command structure; wear openly visible emblems to identify themselves as non-civilians; carry arms out in the open; and respect the Rules of War, which would include not taking hostages. President george w. bush and his administration maintained that the five hundred detainees did not meet these criteria.

Sooooo, did this guy meet this definition? Prolly not but that won't stop these guys from continuing to use the term being it sounds so like official and all!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I remember when the FBI had a small army up in Ruby Ridge a few years ago. American citizens were killed and they never drew a weapon. Also happened in Waco.

How many ATF agents were killed and how could they be killed if no one in Mt. Carmel never drew a weapon?

Koresh set the fires that killed the children.

Yes the ATF and the Feds handled it extremely poorly but they didn't start the fires that killed.

The surviving members of the BD were cleared of charges relating to murder. That bit about the BD's setting the fire is up for debate too. The national guard went in under Reno's supervision and started that assault. Yes, the government was wrong. Yes, the BD were a bunch of whack nuts.

 

[Avorysuds]

He was an enemy combatant. He declared himself such. He committed acts of war against the U.S. Why is this difficult to understand?

So put him on trial, why do you not agree with the Fifth Amendment on this? What was his "act of war" against the US anyways? Was he in the process of killing US citizens the NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW ABOUT?

The “War on Terror” is not actually a war, so there is no battle ground supported by our constitution…

We bombed German and Japanese barracks and installations in WW2 and killed many soldiers, some of whom were probably American citizens. I'll bet they weren't pointing guns at us at the time. They didn't require a trial because it was a war, not a crime. 5A is about criminal procedure. There was no crime committed here.

The main difference was we were at war... funny how that works huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Stick a fork in Herman, he's done.

If the president didnt have that authority then the Civil War could never have been waged.

I'm pretty sure the Confederate act of Fort Sumter alleviates any relevance from what Cain is talking about to what you are saying

Completely different scenarios, all people want is due process with or without him their. I'm sure some ACLU lawyer would pick up the case trying to make a name for himself...

Your post is barely coherent, as is your thinking.
The ACLU already lost this case.
Al-Awlaki Suit Dismissed.

 

[The Rabbi]

So put him on trial, why do you not agree with the Fifth Amendment on this? What was his "act of war" against the US anyways? Was he in the process of killing US citizens the NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW ABOUT?

The “War on Terror” is not actually a war, so there is no battle ground supported by our constitution…

We bombed German and Japanese barracks and installations in WW2 and killed many soldiers, some of whom were probably American citizens. I'll bet they weren't pointing guns at us at the time. They didn't require a trial because it was a war, not a crime. 5A is about criminal procedure. There was no crime committed here.

The main difference was we were at war... funny how that works huh?

And we're at war now too. Funny how that happens.

 

[Avorysuds]

We bombed German and Japanese barracks and installations in WW2 and killed many soldiers, some of whom were probably American citizens. I'll bet they weren't pointing guns at us at the time. They didn't require a trial because it was a war, not a crime. 5A is about criminal procedure. There was no crime committed here.

The main difference was we were at war... funny how that works huh?

And we're at war now too. Funny how that happens.

Oh wow really, go get the declaration of this "War" for all of us... Please TM, can you back up your claim... wait, you're not TM!

 

[The Rabbi]

The main difference was we were at war... funny how that works huh?

And we're at war now too. Funny how that happens.

Oh wow really, go get the declaration of this "War" for all of us... Please TM, can you back up your claim... wait, you're not TM!

Same declaration we had in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.
Quit playing games.

 

[Avorysuds]

And we're at war now too. Funny how that happens.

Oh wow really, go get the declaration of this "War" for all of us... Please TM, can you back up your claim... wait, you're not TM!

Same declaration we had in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.
Quit playing games.

Sooo, no declaration of War, making it another bullshit war? Didn't you just say it was a War, but then couldn't provide congress every actually declaring it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh wow really, go get the declaration of this "War" for all of us... Please TM, can you back up your claim... wait, you're not TM!

Same declaration we had in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.
Quit playing games.

Sooo, no declaration of War, making it another bullshit war? Didn't you just say it was a War, but then couldn't provide congress every actually declaring it?

Gee, I guess Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq etc were "bullshit wars" too.
You are losing credibility here. Quickly. I'd quit while I was behind if i were you.

 

[Avorysuds]

Hey, you’re the one that called a police action a war so that you could then use the fifth amendment…

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same declaration we had in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.
Quit playing games.

Sooo, no declaration of War, making it another bullshit war? Didn't you just say it was a War, but then couldn't provide congress every actually declaring it?

Gee, I guess Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq etc were "bullshit wars" too.
You are losing credibility here. Quickly. I'd quit while I was behind if i were you.

The last declared war was world war two

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have become our enemy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, you’re the one that called a police action a war so that you could then use the fifth amendment…

Really? Where did I do that?

 

[Avorysuds]

Hey, you’re the one that called a police action a war so that you could then use the fifth amendment…

Really? Where did I do that?

And we're at war now too. Funny how that happens.

Oh wow really, go get the declaration of this "War" for all of us... Please TM, can you back up your claim... wait, you're not TM!

Same declaration we had in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.
Quit playing games.

~

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, you’re the one that called a police action a war so that you could then use the fifth amendment…

Really? Where did I do that?

Oh wow really, go get the declaration of this "War" for all of us... Please TM, can you back up your claim... wait, you're not TM!

Same declaration we had in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.
Quit playing games.

~

Are you completely stupid? Do you see the term "Fifth Amendment" anywhere in there? Anywhere? Buehler?

 

[Avorysuds]

Really? Where did I do that?

Same declaration we had in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.
Quit playing games.

~

Are you completely stupid? Do you see the term "Fifth Amendment" anywhere in there? Anywhere? Buehler?

Lol, wow...

 

[CT9]

Stick a fork in Herman, he's done.

If the president didnt have that authority then the Civil War could never have been waged.

I'm pretty sure the Confederate act of Fort Sumter alleviates any relevance from what Cain is talking about to what you are saying

Completely different scenarios, all people want is due process with or without him their. I'm sure some ACLU lawyer would pick up the case trying to make a name for himself...

Your post is barely coherent, as is your thinking.
The ACLU already lost this case.

One if my post is barely coherent how can you understand my thinking, I could do with out your smart ass remarks... you come off like an asshole

However, on to the matter at hand. I will say I didn't know about that trial, and I will state now I don't know much about specific actions awlaki has taken. But to make it clear, that trial was not heard. It was dismissed because awlaki himself was not present. Whether the judge was correct in doing so, is beyond what I am currently qualified to speak on. However, I will add this, if he was worthy of being killed of it appears it should be an open and shut case. I think he should have heard this case to dot all the i's and cross all the t's to prevent scrutiny, and what makes me more worried is the precedent it sets. And its now an undefined precedent, their's no legal example showing in these circumstances that differentiates between it is ok to target citizens and when not to.

Do you not understand this is compounded by the fact we are engaged in a war on "terror". No one can define what a terrorist is, I mean we all have an idea, but we are talking in vague terms that can lend themselves to manipulation. We have declared war in two places, Iraq and Afghanistan. Awlaki was an American citizen and killed in Yemen, not a war zone. I'm not saying they wil abuse it, but I don't like the fact that the government has such an open ended example set for the future.

So now, not only do you not have to meet specific criteria to become a terrorist, but you can be killed almost anywhere in the world at anytime if you end up on that list. What about Johnny Taliban? They captured him,in battle, shooting at troops. Awlaki became the figure head because these groups are hurting and everyone else is dead. I just do not approve of the actions taken here and they can be abused very easily with some manipulation in the future.

Comparing killing a U.S. citizen in Yemen to people who want to separate from the country and are attacking Federal property on U.S. land is wrong and just flat out dumb. I understand you may not agree, but if you can't understand my perspective now, I'm not being incoherent, you are just flat out ignorant.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm pretty sure the Confederate act of Fort Sumter alleviates any relevance from what Cain is talking about to what you are saying

Completely different scenarios, all people want is due process with or without him their. I'm sure some ACLU lawyer would pick up the case trying to make a name for himself...

Your post is barely coherent, as is your thinking.
The ACLU already lost this case.

One if my post is barely coherent how can you understand my thinking, I could do with out your smart ass remarks... you come off like an asshole

However, on to the matter at hand. I will say I didn't know about that trial, and I will state now I don't know much about specific actions awlaki has taken. But to make it clear, that trial was not heard. It was dismissed because awlaki himself was not present. Whether the judge was correct in doing so, is beyond what I am currently qualified to speak on. However, I will add this, if he was worthy of being killed of it appears it should be an open and shut case. I think he should have heard this case to dot all the i's and cross all the t's to prevent scrutiny, and what makes me more worried is the precedent it sets. And its now an undefined precedent, their's no legal example showing in these circumstances that differentiates between it is ok to target citizens and when not to.

Do you not understand this is compounded by the fact we are engaged in a war on "terror". No one can define what a terrorist is, I mean we all have an idea, but we are talking in vague terms that can lend themselves to manipulation. We have declared war in two places, Iraq and Afghanistan. Awlaki was an American citizen and killed in Yemen, not a war zone. I'm not saying they wil abuse it, but I don't like the fact that the government has such an open ended example set for the future.

So now, not only do you not have to meet specific criteria to become a terrorist, but you can be killed almost anywhere in the world at anytime if you end up on that list. What about Johnny Taliban? They captured him,in battle, shooting at troops. Awlaki became the figure head because these groups are hurting and everyone else is dead. I just do not approve of the actions taken here and they can be abused very easily with some manipulation in the future.

Comparing killing a U.S. citizen in Yemen to people who want to separate from the country and are attacking Federal property on U.S. land is wrong and just flat out dumb. I understand you may not agree, but if you can't understand my perspective now, I'm not being incoherent, you are just flat out ignorant.

You come off like an ignoramus. Probably for good reason.
The suit was not dismissed because alA was not there. IT was dismissed because the judicial branch cannot dictate to the Commander in Chief how to prosecute a war. If you had read any reports about the trial you would have known that.
One does have to meet specific criteria. Merely criticizing Obama isn't enought.
Everyone else is dead? Really? al Zawahiri is dead? News to me.
Your perspective is that of an ignorant person who reacts on a gut level. No, I really cannot understand that.