Cain against assassinate American citizens that are terrorists

[CT9]

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.

Your own link gives that as a basis for the dismissal because al-awlaki is not present and his father could not stand to sue. This is bigger than a terrorist being killed, you have answered none of my points, and it is your failure to comprehend the bigger picture and understand the legal system of the United States.

Your own link confirms my fears, that if you are put on a terrorist list you are open season. It isn't a war policy, it is a civil matter when you begin knocking off U.S. civilians. You can't declare war on your own state, he hasn't declared Martial law which I'm not sure how you would do on Yemen, but I'm sure you could come up with a way.

He wasn't killed in a war zone... This isn't condusive to the war effort at all. Neither of them. You haven't refuted or acknowledged my points at all, if you can't refute them you must accept them. Instead of simply dismissing someone. Pointing to someone else who isn't dead doesn't make me wrong, why was awlaki viewed as the number one by many people then? It's not that we have killed them all, but we are knocking them off one by one.

I mean it's really frustrating to debate with someone so lost in their own mind that they can't acknowledge when they were wrong, or that their opinion is just different.

I understand how someone can say awlaki deserved to die, I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, the devil is in the details and the fact of the matter is, as your link and you pointed out, he was put on a list of terrorists, which is undefined, anybody can end up on that list, and killed outside of a warzone.

That is indisputable.

You never refuted my debunking of your Civil War post, which just is ignorant of history. Never provided any definition of a terrorist... nothing

You have just convinvced yourself you were right... Which is the highest form of ignorance and stupidity.


It has nothing to do with Awlaki and Obama and everything to do with the scope of what has transpired and the precedent it sets.

You do know what precedent is, right?

I mean I know those Tennessee schools aren't the best in the nation, but I'm sure dictionary.com could educate you.

 

[CT9]

it was dismissed because the Father had no legal standing because he was not the target.

Had Al cameback and Sued Obama he would of had legal standing to stop the attack on his person.

Thank you I thought I was losing my mind

He must learn well from the media, when you are wrong

Just change the story up a little bit to match what you want it to.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Your own link gives that as a basis for the dismissal because al-awlaki is not present and his father could not stand to sue. This is bigger than a terrorist being killed, you have answered none of my points, and it is your failure to comprehend the bigger picture and understand the legal system of the United States.

Your own link confirms my fears, that if you are put on a terrorist list you are open season. It isn't a war policy, it is a civil matter when you begin knocking off U.S. civilians. You can't declare war on your own state, he hasn't declared Martial law which I'm not sure how you would do on Yemen, but I'm sure you could come up with a way.

He wasn't killed in a war zone... This isn't condusive to the war effort at all. Neither of them. You haven't refuted or acknowledged my points at all, if you can't refute them you must accept them. Instead of simply dismissing someone. Pointing to someone else who isn't dead doesn't make me wrong, why was awlaki viewed as the number one by many people then? It's not that we have killed them all, but we are knocking them off one by one.

I mean it's really frustrating to debate with someone so lost in their own mind that they can't acknowledge when they were wrong, or that their opinion is just different.

I understand how someone can say awlaki deserved to die, I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, the devil is in the details and the fact of the matter is, as your link and you pointed out, he was put on a list of terrorists, which is undefined, anybody can end up on that list, and killed outside of a warzone.

That is indisputable.

You never refuted my debunking of your Civil War post, which just is ignorant of history. Never provided any definition of a terrorist... nothing

You have just convinvced yourself you were right... Which is the highest form of ignorance and stupidity.


It has nothing to do with Awlaki and Obama and everything to do with the scope of what has transpired and the precedent it sets.

You do know what precedent is, right?

I mean I know those Tennessee schools aren't the best in the nation, but I'm sure dictionary.com could educate you.

You're such an ignoramus.

Judge Bates said the suit must be dismissed under the political question doctrine, which requires judges to step aside in issues that are best resolved by the elected, political branches of government.

Judge dismisses bid to remove Anwar al-Awlaki from US 'kill list' - CSMonitor.com
You never refuted the issue of the Civil War, where US troops fired on american citizens without any due process. You hardly addressed the issue.
Go back and look at ex parte Quirin. Citizenship does not confer a roving shield from bellicose actions.
You keep repeating the same points hoping that this time it will make a difference. It doesn't. The administration was correct. Al Awlaki was an unlawful combatant. He was not subject to the usual protections in criminal action because he was not a criminal.
Here's John Yoo, who knows a thing or two about law, on the topic:
John Yoo: From Gettysburg to Anwar al-Awlaki - WSJ.com
You know, about 5 minutes on this neat site called "Google" might help you here. Get an adult to show you how.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't live and breathe RP, I in fact started a thread about Cain, I take it you like Cain and now find yourself in a bit of a pickle is all... Grats.

You started a thread about Cain and tried to justify it by using RP.

And what pickle am I in? Unlike some I'm not so narrow minded that I have to live, breathe and believe in every position a possible candidate holds.

Whew, only thing more annyoing than Ron Paul fanboys are the Ron Paul haters...

i dont think anyone hates the guy.....i believe they are just saying he doesnt stand a chance to be the nominee.....i wont consider the guy....he is just too dam old.....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh yes we can.. And we did..

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

who's going over to yemen to arrest him? extradite him/ gather the forensics? eric holder,,

So If I go to say, spain, and obama says my posts make me a terrorist is it ok to drone strike me?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Amazing how the TEA Party is the standing up for civil liberties and individual rights.

ty for recognizing my position!

 

[Harry Dresden]

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

hiding out in a foreign country is different then being in the US.....you can grab the guy here and prosecute him....the other guy you have to send a Drone A Gram.....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

hiding out in a foreign country is different then being in the US.....you can grab the guy here and prosecute him....the other guy you have to send a Drone A Gram.....

What if you and I go to europe on vacation and someone deems our online posts to make us terrorists because we speak out against things we don't like with Obama......since we are in europe its ok to kill us because its not in the USA?

See what i'm getting at, its a slippery slope. Like I said I am glad we took him out and I'm not trying to grief the President or Govt over it but you need to think about the precedent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

hiding out in a foreign country is different then being in the US.....you can grab the guy here and prosecute him....the other guy you have to send a Drone A Gram.....

What if you and I go to europe on vacation and someone deems our online posts to make us terrorists because we speak out against things we don't like with Obama......since we are in europe its ok to kill us because its not in the USA?

See what i'm getting at, its a slippery slope. Like I said I am glad we took him out and I'm not trying to grief the President or Govt over it but you need to think about the precedent.

I'm a terrorist I enjoy bring fear and terror to the hearts of all politicans. Would that make me an enemy of the state?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

hiding out in a foreign country is different then being in the US.....you can grab the guy here and prosecute him....the other guy you have to send a Drone A Gram.....

What if you and I go to europe on vacation and someone deems our online posts to make us terrorists because we speak out against things we don't like with Obama......since we are in europe its ok to kill us because its not in the USA?

See what i'm getting at, its a slippery slope. Like I said I am glad we took him out and I'm not trying to grief the President or Govt over it but you need to think about the precedent.

I'm a terrorist I enjoy bring fear and terror to the hearts of all politicans. Would that make me an enemy of the state?

Good Question. Better question, if it does, do you deserve a trial if you are found in canada or can we just assasinate you?

 

[The Rabbi]

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

who's going over to yemen to arrest him? extradite him/ gather the forensics? eric holder,,

So If I go to say, spain, and obama says my posts make me a terrorist is it ok to drone strike me?

I think al Awlaki did a little more than post disparaging remarks on USMB.

 

[The Rabbi]

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

hiding out in a foreign country is different then being in the US.....you can grab the guy here and prosecute him....the other guy you have to send a Drone A Gram.....

What if you and I go to europe on vacation and someone deems our online posts to make us terrorists because we speak out against things we don't like with Obama......since we are in europe its ok to kill us because its not in the USA?

See what i'm getting at, its a slippery slope. Like I said I am glad we took him out and I'm not trying to grief the President or Govt over it but you need to think about the precedent.

It's called a "slippery slope fallacy" for a reason.
The precedent is long established. Enemy combatants are fair game. Citizenship does not shield you from the consequences of your actions.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

who's going over to yemen to arrest him? extradite him/ gather the forensics? eric holder,,

So If I go to say, spain, and obama says my posts make me a terrorist is it ok to drone strike me?

I think al Awlaki did a little more than post disparaging remarks on USMB.

Indeed he did, hence my not giving obama shit over it.

It still sets the precedent, maybe you trust the govt not to go down that slope but I dont.

 

[Ravi]

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

hiding out in a foreign country is different then being in the US.....you can grab the guy here and prosecute him....the other guy you have to send a Drone A Gram.....

What if you and I go to europe on vacation and someone deems our online posts to make us terrorists because we speak out against things we don't like with Obama......since we are in europe its ok to kill us because its not in the USA?

See what i'm getting at, its a slippery slope. Like I said I am glad we took him out and I'm not trying to grief the President or Govt over it but you need to think about the precedent.

Don't be stupid. You are free to speak against the president as much as you like. You are not free to join AQ and plot attacks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What if you and I go to europe on vacation and someone deems our online posts to make us terrorists because we speak out against things we don't like with Obama......since we are in europe its ok to kill us because its not in the USA?

See what i'm getting at, its a slippery slope. Like I said I am glad we took him out and I'm not trying to grief the President or Govt over it but you need to think about the precedent.

I'm a terrorist I enjoy bring fear and terror to the hearts of all politicans. Would that make me an enemy of the state?

Good Question. Better question, if it does, do you deserve a trial if you are found in canada or can we just assasinate you?

With citizenship in America comes benifts and one of those benifits is due process.All rights reserved since 1791

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm a terrorist I enjoy bring fear and terror to the hearts of all politicans. Would that make me an enemy of the state?

Good Question. Better question, if it does, do you deserve a trial if you are found in canada or can we just assasinate you?

With citizenship in America comes benifts and one of those benifits is due process.All rights reserved since 1791

Wrong.

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good Question. Better question, if it does, do you deserve a trial if you are found in canada or can we just assasinate you?

With citizenship in America comes benifts and one of those benifits is due process.All rights reserved since 1791

Wrong.

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war

1. What war are we in? If that's the case jane fonda should be shot today.
2. Never said Citizenship relieved anyone of their consequences of a belligerency, but their rights are still reserved
3. Killing an Americxan citizen on noithing but hearsay is that what we have come to?

 

[The Rabbi]

With citizenship in America comes benifts and one of those benifits is due process.All rights reserved since 1791

Wrong.

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war

1. What war are we in? If that's the case jane fonda should be shot today.
2. Never said Citizenship relieved anyone of their consequences of a belligerency, but their rights are still reserved
3. Killing an Americxan citizen on noithing but hearsay is that what we have come to?

We dont have to be in a war.
Their rights are a criminal matter. This is not a criminal matter. al Awlaki was not a criminal.
The evidence was hardly hearsay.

You are defending a terrorist who would gladly have taken your rights and shoved them up your ass. Does that bother you in the slightest?

 

[Intense]

I'm a terrorist I enjoy bring fear and terror to the hearts of all politicans. Would that make me an enemy of the state?

Good Question. Better question, if it does, do you deserve a trial if you are found in canada or can we just assasinate you?

With citizenship in America comes benifts and one of those benifits is due process.All rights reserved since 1791

The more this plays out, the more I want the question answered "Is this Legal?" Show us the Justification to both the Targeting and the Authority. Cain has every right to question and examine, be he on either side of the matter.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

hiding out in a foreign country is different then being in the US.....you can grab the guy here and prosecute him....the other guy you have to send a Drone A Gram.....

What if you and I go to europe on vacation and someone deems our online posts to make us terrorists because we speak out against things we don't like with Obama......since we are in europe its ok to kill us because its not in the USA?

See what i'm getting at, its a slippery slope. Like I said I am glad we took him out and I'm not trying to grief the President or Govt over it but you need to think about the precedent.

Don't be stupid. You are free to speak against the president as much as you like. You are not free to join AQ and plot attacks.

For now I am...what about the next president, or the one after that? What if THEY change the definition of what a terrorist is.

Sorry I dont trust people or human nature with this type of unconstitutional power.