Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[RadiomanATL]

So you have no proof...

Thing of it is you support a "War" that is a not War but a attack on a tactic... That means Obama, Bush and any future President can use a "Non War" to target and kill anyone they want.

You sir are part of the problem. You can't even prove this man was an immediate danger to the American public. You base his possible future crimes as your reasoning. You cite the constitution then ignore it when it clearly does not agree with you, the part you quoted even.

Grats you turned the Fifth Amendment into the general welfare clause.

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

They don't... Not anymore than many other areas and people in the world. More people die by illegal aliens in this country every year than from your evil Al Qaeda.

Yes, yes...we know you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

 

[Full-Auto]

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

Our constitution clearly authorizes his death. But that action comes with serious questions. Regardless of what one thinks about the checks and balances prescribed we still empowered this government to do as it wishes.

The buzz word today that makes everything they do OK NATIONAL SECURITY.

 

[RadiomanATL]

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

Al Qaeda is so "omg evil" that you have to go back ten years to their only real attack on the US... More people die or get hurt from countless other activities or hate in this country. Gangs kill more, cars kill more, drinking kills more than this great evil that you claim is reason to erode our constitution.

You are weak and scared.

So because I believe in killing terrorists, I am weak and scared?

So, conversely, you want all terrorists to go free?

Is that really your argument?

You're a loon.

 

[whitehall]

Who needs a trial he is a terrorist!
Remember the partiot act that the TP re-upped.

He was an American born in the USA. Does that make a difference to the left anymore? He wasn't killed bearing arms against the US on the battlefield. The president signed his death warrant.

 

[RadiomanATL]

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

Our constitution clearly authorizes his death. But that action comes with serious questions. Regardless of what one thinks about the checks and balances prescribed we still empowered this government to do as it wishes.

The buzz word today that makes everything they do OK NATIONAL SECURITY.

Yup.

 

[Avorysuds]

We already get that you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

No need to further convince us of your idiocy

They don't... Not anymore than many other areas and people in the world. More people die by illegal aliens in this country every year than from your evil Al Qaeda.

Yes, yes...we know you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

And you are against the basics of our constitution. One day you will realize the constitution does not give authority to kill citizens based off what they might one day do. Everyone could possibly pose a threat to our country under your logic.

Keep playing the mindless War is fucking awesome card…

 

[Full-Auto]

Our constitution clearly authorizes his death. But that action comes with serious questions. Regardless of what one thinks about the checks and balances prescribed we still empowered this government to do as it wishes.

The buzz word today that makes everything they do OK NATIONAL SECURITY.

Yup.

What we need is another convention to further define powers. Our current government fears returning soldiers.

 

[Avorysuds]

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

Our constitution clearly authorizes his death. But that action comes with serious questions. Regardless of what one thinks about the checks and balances prescribed we still empowered this government to do as it wishes.

The buzz word today that makes everything they do OK NATIONAL SECURITY.

Yes, the question I have was killing him the only option. If he were captured and put on trial and sentenced to death through that system there would be little to no complaints... The way things are done raises the questions of who is next and who decides what is worth targeting citizens... then who can stop it when we don't agree and the constitution no longer has meaning to those in power..

 

[RadiomanATL]

They don't... Not anymore than many other areas and people in the world. More people die by illegal aliens in this country every year than from your evil Al Qaeda.

Yes, yes...we know you think Al Qaeda doesn't present a public danger.

And you are against the basics of our constitution. One day you will realize the constitution does not give authority to kill citizens based off what they might one day do. Everyone could possibly pose a threat to our country under your logic.

Keep playing the mindless War is fucking awesome card…

Under your logic, once an attack is made we can't attack back.

Let us know how well that works out.

 

[Truthmatters]

Bush had this policy and I dont remember the right not liking it then.

When it was talked against back then you all called critizing it as "being with the terrorists".

 

[Avorysuds]

Al Qaeda is so "omg evil" that you have to go back ten years to their only real attack on the US... More people die or get hurt from countless other activities or hate in this country. Gangs kill more, cars kill more, drinking kills more than this great evil that you claim is reason to erode our constitution.

You are weak and scared.

So because I believe in killing terrorists, I am weak and scared?

So, conversely, you want all terrorists to go free?

Is that really your argument?

You're a loon.

I called you weak and scared because you give up your freedoms.

I never said I want any terrorists free but that would assume they are not free or that we have them all captured and that is not the case. Terror is a tactic, our soldiers are truly nothing more than terrorists that our country agrees with, but that is too hard for most to comprehend. This is where you attack me for not getting a hard on over people that serve in the military...

All of what we see is further proof that messing around with other courtiers through killing civilians, installing puppet Governments, supplying peoples enemy’s with weapons, intel and other supplies will cause blow back.

 

[Avorysuds]

Bush had this policy and I dont remember the right not liking it then.

When it was talked against back then you all called critizing it as "being with the terrorists".

And you called it eveil and demanded he be put on trial for war crimes... Now you're just another Neocon war loving fool because it's a Democrat.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Al Qaeda is so "omg evil" that you have to go back ten years to their only real attack on the US... More people die or get hurt from countless other activities or hate in this country. Gangs kill more, cars kill more, drinking kills more than this great evil that you claim is reason to erode our constitution.

You are weak and scared.

So because I believe in killing terrorists, I am weak and scared?

So, conversely, you want all terrorists to go free?

Is that really your argument?

You're a loon.

I called you weak and scared because you give up your freedoms.

I never said I want any terrorists free but that would assume they are not free or that we have them all captured and that is not the case. Terror is a tactic, our soldiers are truly nothing more than terrorists that our country agrees with, but that is too hard for most to comprehend. This is where you attack me for not getting a hard on over people that serve in the military...

All of what we see is further proof that messing around with other courtiers through killing civilians, installing puppet Governments, supplying peoples enemy’s with weapons, intel and other supplies will cause blow back.

I haven't given up any freedoms. This action was allowed under the constitution. Thanks for your concern though, and continue to support Al Qaeda

 

[Full-Auto]

Our constitution clearly authorizes his death. But that action comes with serious questions. Regardless of what one thinks about the checks and balances prescribed we still empowered this government to do as it wishes.

The buzz word today that makes everything they do OK NATIONAL SECURITY.

Yes, the question I have was killing him the only option. If he were captured and put on trial and sentenced to death through that system there would be little to no complaints... The way things are done raises the questions of who is next and who decides what is worth targeting citizens... then who can stop it when we don't agree and the constitution no longer has meaning to those in power..

Why would we risk many many lives to capture him overseas. Any added intel would be minor at best. I dont like this. But as a citizen, he was fighting against us. Combatants are targeted and killed. My concerns about the all powerful Feds are of a domestic nature.

 

[Avorysuds]

So because I believe in killing terrorists, I am weak and scared?

So, conversely, you want all terrorists to go free?

Is that really your argument?

You're a loon.

I called you weak and scared because you give up your freedoms.

I never said I want any terrorists free but that would assume they are not free or that we have them all captured and that is not the case. Terror is a tactic, our soldiers are truly nothing more than terrorists that our country agrees with, but that is too hard for most to comprehend. This is where you attack me for not getting a hard on over people that serve in the military...

All of what we see is further proof that messing around with other courtiers through killing civilians, installing puppet Governments, supplying peoples enemy’s with weapons, intel and other supplies will cause blow back.

I haven't given up any freedoms. This action was allowed under the constitution. Thanks for your concern though, and continue to support Al Qaeda

Saying I support Al Qaeda, now you sound like TM.

 

[Avorysuds]

Our constitution clearly authorizes his death. But that action comes with serious questions. Regardless of what one thinks about the checks and balances prescribed we still empowered this government to do as it wishes.

The buzz word today that makes everything they do OK NATIONAL SECURITY.

Yes, the question I have was killing him the only option. If he were captured and put on trial and sentenced to death through that system there would be little to no complaints... The way things are done raises the questions of who is next and who decides what is worth targeting citizens... then who can stop it when we don't agree and the constitution no longer has meaning to those in power..

Why would we risk many many lives to capture him overseas. Any added intel would be minor at best. I dont like this. But as a citizen, he was fighting against us. Combatants are targeted and killed. My concerns about the all powerful Feds are of a domestic nature.

We risk lives to kill him... We shouldn’t be in the false war anyways. We have given the terrorists more money and weapons, more reason and better recruiting material than they could have ever dreamed possible.

We are quite literally fighting our own weapons and our own money at this point.

 

[Sunshine]

Since it does and all....

You need to work on your reading comprehension problem!

Why are some of you so hot on giving these people trials? Is it truly a myopic constitutionally based position (not taking all aspects of constitutionally based law into consideration) or is it something more? Something like the information that could be disclosed by an open trial, like where and how do we get our intelligence.........

You should be more concerned about why the PRESIDENT is so hot on giving trials to FOREIGNERS, bringing them here from a foreign battlefield to stand trail in our civilian courts, and not affording an American citizen the same.

It is F'ed up. But it is permissible.

 

[Sunshine]

Since it does and all....

You need to work on your reading comprehension problem!

Why are some of you so hot on giving these people trials? Is it truly a myopic constitutionally based position (not taking all aspects of constitutionally based law into consideration) or is it something more? Something like the information that could be disclosed by an open trial, like where and how do we get our intelligence.........

You should be more concerned about why the PRESIDENT is so hot on giving trials to FOREIGNERS, bringing them here from a foreign battlefield to stand trail in our civilian courts, and not affording an American citizen the same.

I show you in the constitution and in the writings on the fifth itself where it is allowed, using your own link, and all you can say is that I need to work on my comprehension problem?

I bet you didn't do very well in Constitutional Law when you were in law school. Did you?

From my link:

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Grand Jury Exception Clause -
Burns vs. Wilson
The Supreme Court created a new "right" for military personnel to use federal courts in Burns vs. Wilson, 1953. Military personnel do not claim the same free speech protections that civilians claim because of the nature of the military. Certain forms of disrespectful or contemptuous speech would be harmful to the military's mission.

In this case, the defendant claimed that his free speech rights were being violated by the military and the military court had convicted him. He appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the military court had not protected his constitutional right to free speech. The Court agreed that military personnel have certain constitutional rights just like civilians, but also said that they may be applied in different ways in the military setting. This created a door for military personnel to appeal cases out of the military courts on the grounds that the military had manifestly refused to consider the defendants claim of having his rights violated. This essentially grants people in the military the same basic rights as civilians.

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Grand Jury Exception Clause -
Rasul vs. Bush

Guantanamo Bay
detainee

Further, in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul vs. Bush that federal district courts could hear challenges by detainees held at America's Guantanamo Bay military base. This remains a very controversial decision in the eyes of many observers. This is the first time that foreign enemies have been granted the right to appeal military punishments outside of the military courts in American history. Many people argue that foreign citizens do not have the rights given to American citizens in the Constitution. Some people say that they should have those rights, whether the Constitution says so or not.





Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Grand Jury Exception Clause -
Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld
In another "War on Terrorism" case, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, 2004, the Supreme Court declared that a US citizen who is being held as an enemy combatant by the military must be allowed to challenge his detention in civil courts. In this case, an American citizen was found to be cooperating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Court overruled the government's claim that he should be held as an enemy combatant and instead he must be given the same privileges and rights given to any citizen charged with a crime. You can read more about the Hamdi case here.

You can suck Obama's dick from now until kingdom come. It doesn't make you right.

 

[Sunshine]

drunk driving is a public danger, the amount we spend on deterrence varies quite a bit though.

Our constitution clearly authorizes his death. But that action comes with serious questions. Regardless of what one thinks about the checks and balances prescribed we still empowered this government to do as it wishes.

The buzz word today that makes everything they do OK NATIONAL SECURITY.

So now, it is OK to kill someone based on a 'buzz word?'

 

[Sunshine]

Al Qaeda is so "omg evil" that you have to go back ten years to their only real attack on the US... More people die or get hurt from countless other activities or hate in this country. Gangs kill more, cars kill more, drinking kills more than this great evil that you claim is reason to erode our constitution.

You are weak and scared.

So because I believe in killing terrorists, I am weak and scared?

So, conversely, you want all terrorists to go free?

Is that really your argument?

You're a loon.

So, I accuse you of being a terrorist and your death warrant is sealed! Groovy!