Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Correction: The day the President of the United States believes I am waging war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.
Correction to your erroneous "correction [sic]":
The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.
Correction: The day the executive branch discovers that you don't support the president and that declaring you a 'terrorist' or an 'enemy combatant' makes you easier to get rid of...
Not that any such thing has ever occurred in history or anything
If the International game of war was played fairly, assassination would be an option.
Well, for your pathetic little strawman to work it would have to be secret.
But, stupid, I didn't offer any strawman, pathetic or otherwise.
When we are at war with the likes of al qaeda, you ignorant nitwit, the need for military and intelligence SECRECY is pretty fucking obvious. Even a complete pinhead like you ought to be able to grasp the glaringly obvious.
But, considering that it's you, perhaps not.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
It's clear which side you favor.
Hey if this despicable cretin should accidentally bump into a bullet in the process of capture,i certainly wouldn't shed any tears. That being said,our President sanctioning a hit on an American Citizen is a bit chilling. Maybe they could have handled it differently. Just a thought anyway.
Put your guns down. You're under arrest.
No hablo inglés.
Oh. Hablo Smith and Wesson?
You have the right to remain dead.
Anything you do will be used against you.
You have the right to a coroner.
If you cannot afford one, we will
appoint a medical examiner for you.
Well then I have a big problem with it.
Really? Why? An American citizen waging war against the United States is somehow entitled to a "trial" instead of being treated like an enemy soldier (of the illegal combatant variety or otherwise)? Let's go to a hypothetical scenario:
Person "A" has a nuclear weapon which he has somehow smuggled into the borders of mainland USA. "A" has a plan (replete with co-conspirators who are actively attempting to help him put the plan into prompt effect). His "plan" is to detonate the nuclear weapon in an American city in order to kill as many American civilians as possible in one "spectacular" terrorist act and in order to throw the entire Republic into chaos. But, through excellent intelligence and law enforcement work (including the use of the NSA Surveillance Program and various tools associated with the USA PATRIOT Act), and by virtue, too, of just a bit of good luck, the plot is uncovered in time. "A" is spotted with the nuclear device AS it is BEING armed by him!
Should our responding intelligence assets/military assets/law enforcement assets
(A) shoot the fucker immediately?
(B) risk the delay, and try to "arrest" him?
or
(C) seek the "permission" of a Court of law to do either (a) or (b)?
Now, here's the kicker. Does the ANSWER to that question depend upon whether or not "A" is a United States citizen? If so, why?
You do not need any new power in the POTUS for this scenario, Liability. Any cop in the country could shoot to kill on these facts -- defense of another, self-defense, reasonable force, blah blah blah.
The scenario in which you need a new power is more like: Joe Terrorist, an Indianapolis resident and citizen of the US, has some old nuclear reactor fuel. On Tuesday, he'll be meeting Suzie Dictator to sell it. Suzie plans to use it to blow up Toledo.
Can the POTUS order the CIA to shoot to kill both Joe (the citizen) and Suzie (the non-citizen, possibly an enemy combatant -- certainly, an enemy)? What if they plan to meet in Toledo?
RetiredGySgt wrote:
Being AMAZINGLY stupid again I see. The person in question is NOT in the US, is in hiding with other ARMED members of his terrorist army and he is leading said ARMY. We have no way to arrest him AT ALL. MORON.
RetiredGySgt wrote:
Being AMAZINGLY stupid again I see. The person in question is NOT in the US, is in hiding with other ARMED members of his terrorist army and he is leading said ARMY. We have no way to arrest him AT ALL. MORON.
I have stated repeatedly that I do not think Awlaki is a candidate for extra-judicial killing because I don't see any need to execute him in secret, immediately. Since the whole of Planet Earth knows we're after this guy, why not have a trial?
And as always, thankies for your polite reply, RGS.
RetiredGySgt wrote:
Being AMAZINGLY stupid again I see. The person in question is NOT in the US, is in hiding with other ARMED members of his terrorist army and he is leading said ARMY. We have no way to arrest him AT ALL. MORON.
I have stated repeatedly that I do not think Awlaki is a candidate for extra-judicial killing because I don't see any need to execute him in secret, immediately. Since the whole of Planet Earth knows we're after this guy, why not have a trial?
And as always, thankies for your polite reply, RGS.
We can NOT try him UNDER our laws because we have never held him, that has been explained to you SEVERAL times in this thread. Are you stupid or dense? You get the reply your intelligence deserves.
I have stated repeatedly that I do not think Awlaki is a candidate for extra-judicial killing because I don't see any need to execute him in secret, immediately. Since the whole of Planet Earth knows we're after this guy, why not have a trial?
And as always, thankies for your polite reply, RGS.
We can NOT try him UNDER our laws because we have never held him, that has been explained to you SEVERAL times in this thread. Are you stupid or dense? You get the reply your intelligence deserves.
We may not be able to arrest him in the sense of traditional US criminal justice, but if we could capture him, we could drag him in front of one of our courts or an international court and try him there. Finding and capturing this MOFO seems to be an impediment to killing him as well, incidentially.
Either way, here is my POV in a nutshell: yes, the POTUS has the power to call for an extra-judicial killing. No, not on Awlaki, because the need to avoid due process is not present in his case.
As an aside, mebbe you could sort out what it is about my posts that aggravate you so much, RGS. I don't see you heaping abuse on anyone else to this degree and it bothers me. I have asked you before not to do this, and I'm willing to try and address your hot buttons, whatever they might be. Merely disagreeing with you is not a sign of stupidity...aren't we all here to debate issues?
We can NOT try him UNDER our laws because we have never held him, that has been explained to you SEVERAL times in this thread. Are you stupid or dense? You get the reply your intelligence deserves.
We may not be able to arrest him in the sense of traditional US criminal justice, but if we could capture him, we could drag him in front of one of our courts or an international court and try him there. Finding and capturing this MOFO seems to be an impediment to killing him as well, incidentially.
Either way, here is my POV in a nutshell: yes, the POTUS has the power to call for an extra-judicial killing. No, not on Awlaki, because the need to avoid due process is not present in his case.
As an aside, mebbe you could sort out what it is about my posts that aggravate you so much, RGS. I don't see you heaping abuse on anyone else to this degree and it bothers me. I have asked you before not to do this, and I'm willing to try and address your hot buttons, whatever they might be. Merely disagreeing with you is not a sign of stupidity...aren't we all here to debate issues?
What bothers me? You do not READ what is in links OR you can not understand what is written. You do not seem able to comprehend others posts. You have been told things over and over and simply seem UNABLE to grasp the concepts. You post stuff with a link and invariable the link has almost nothing to do with what you claim it said.
In this thread you seem unable to grasp the simple concept that UNLESS we have physical possession of the man in question we can not ( if he escaped) try him in abstention. You have been told this repeatedly. You have said we do not need to capture him but should try him anyway, even though you have been told repeatedly that is NOT legal. This is a recurring pattern in every thread you participate in.
We may not be able to arrest him in the sense of traditional US criminal justice, but if we could capture him, we could drag him in front of one of our courts or an international court and try him there. Finding and capturing this MOFO seems to be an impediment to killing him as well, incidentially.
Either way, here is my POV in a nutshell: yes, the POTUS has the power to call for an extra-judicial killing. No, not on Awlaki, because the need to avoid due process is not present in his case.
As an aside, mebbe you could sort out what it is about my posts that aggravate you so much, RGS. I don't see you heaping abuse on anyone else to this degree and it bothers me. I have asked you before not to do this, and I'm willing to try and address your hot buttons, whatever they might be. Merely disagreeing with you is not a sign of stupidity...aren't we all here to debate issues?
What bothers me? You do not READ what is in links OR you can not understand what is written. You do not seem able to comprehend others posts. You have been told things over and over and simply seem UNABLE to grasp the concepts. You post stuff with a link and invariable the link has almost nothing to do with what you claim it said.
In this thread you seem unable to grasp the simple concept that UNLESS we have physical possession of the man in question we can not ( if he escaped) try him in abstention. You have been told this repeatedly. You have said we do not need to capture him but should try him anyway, even though you have been told repeatedly that is NOT legal. This is a recurring pattern in every thread you participate in.
I have read that some hold this opinion, RGS. I do not share it. If that gives you heartburn, I am sorry....but I cannot concede my ability to think for myself just to avoid annoying you.
And BTW, trials have proceeded after the defendant escaped. Not that it matters all that much...I'm sure if we ever get Awlaki into custody, he's not going anywhere. Please let me know if you feel this link does not support the contention I posted it for.
723 F.2d 1538
We may not be able to arrest him in the sense of traditional US criminal justice, but if we could capture him, we could drag him in front of one of our courts or an international court and try him there. Finding and capturing this MOFO seems to be an impediment to killing him as well, incidentially.
Either way, here is my POV in a nutshell: yes, the POTUS has the power to call for an extra-judicial killing. No, not on Awlaki, because the need to avoid due process is not present in his case.
As an aside, mebbe you could sort out what it is about my posts that aggravate you so much, RGS. I don't see you heaping abuse on anyone else to this degree and it bothers me. I have asked you before not to do this, and I'm willing to try and address your hot buttons, whatever they might be. Merely disagreeing with you is not a sign of stupidity...aren't we all here to debate issues?
What bothers me? You do not READ what is in links OR you can not understand what is written. You do not seem able to comprehend others posts. You have been told things over and over and simply seem UNABLE to grasp the concepts. You post stuff with a link and invariable the link has almost nothing to do with what you claim it said.
In this thread you seem unable to grasp the simple concept that UNLESS we have physical possession of the man in question we can not ( if he escaped) try him in abstention. You have been told this repeatedly. You have said we do not need to capture him but should try him anyway, even though you have been told repeatedly that is NOT legal. This is a recurring pattern in every thread you participate in.
I have read that some hold this opinion, RGS. I do not share it. If that gives you heartburn, I am sorry....but I cannot concede my ability to think for myself just to avoid annoying you.
And BTW, trials have proceeded after the defendant escaped. Not that it matters all that much...I'm sure if we ever get Awlaki into custody, he's not going anywhere. Please let me know if you feel this link does not support the contention I posted it for.
723 F.2d 1538
How do we solve this with every other criminal?I have stated repeatedly that I do not think Awlaki is a candidate for extra-judicial killing because I don't see any need to execute him in secret, immediately. Since the whole of Planet Earth knows we're after this guy, why not have a trial?RetiredGySgt wrote:
Being AMAZINGLY stupid again I see. The person in question is NOT in the US, is in hiding with other ARMED members of his terrorist army and he is leading said ARMY. We have no way to arrest him AT ALL. MORON.
And as always, thankies for your polite reply, RGS.
We can NOT try him UNDER our laws because we have never held him
How do we solve this with every other criminal?I have stated repeatedly that I do not think Awlaki is a candidate for extra-judicial killing because I don't see any need to execute him in secret, immediately. Since the whole of Planet Earth knows we're after this guy, why not have a trial?
And as always, thankies for your polite reply, RGS.
We can NOT try him UNDER our laws because we have never held him
Oh yeah, we issue a warrant for his arrest and take him into custody. If he's in a nation that refuses to extradite him (eg: he makes his way to the ME to hide w/ BL), then we go get him.
Once we have him in custody, he sees a fair trial and, if the evidence against him shows him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he's punished accordingly.
that has been explained to you SEVERAL times in this thread. Are you stupid or dense?
But, stupid, I didn't offer any strawman, pathetic or otherwise.
When we are at war with the likes of al qaeda, you ignorant nitwit, the need for military and intelligence SECRECY is pretty fucking obvious. Even a complete pinhead like you ought to be able to grasp the glaringly obvious.
But, considering that it's you, perhaps not.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
It's clear which side you favor.
Your scumbag reliance on a Nazi analogy only proves that you are a total scumbag. No surprise there.
And since this is not even remotely a matter of us meekly accepting what "they" "tell" us, but it is instead a matter of us using our very own eyes and ears, your analogy is fucking stupid on many levels.
There. Feel better now, ass-sucker?
Hey idiot (yes, JPukeenema, that means you, you fucking imbecile): According to what passes for your "logic," then, we could JUST as easily go after Osama bin Pigfucker in some cave in the mountains of Afghanistan.
But there's no compelling logical, rational, coherent reason at all to do so.
Idiots of your kind --i.e., those with incredibly dense impenetrable skulls -- simply cannot get it into your minuscule minds that some vile behavior is not merely "criminal." Osama bin Pigfucker does not need to be "tried" for any crimes. He needs to be exterminated. Period.
Awlaki is merely a difference of degree, not of kind. But morons like you cannot grasp the glaringly obvious.
Hey idiot (yes, JPukeenema, that means you, you fucking imbecile): According to what passes for your "logic," then, we could JUST as easily go after Osama bin Pigfucker in some cave in the mountains of Afghanistan.
But there's no compelling logical, rational, coherent reason at all to do so.
Idiots of your kind --i.e., those with incredibly dense impenetrable skulls -- simply cannot get it into your minuscule minds that some vile behavior is not merely "criminal." Osama bin Pigfucker does not need to be "tried" for any crimes. He needs to be exterminated. Period.
Awlaki is merely a difference of degree, not of kind. But morons like you cannot grasp the glaringly obvious.
I've got no problem if Awlaki gets killed while we're hitting an Al Queda training camp, or while we're hitting a nuclear reactor in Iran, or while we're hitting a military target. Soldiers on a battlefield get no due process when the bombs fall.
The issue that most of us have is in targetting a specific person, not a military installation or a manufacturing hub, but targetting an individual person. Targetting a human being for death is called Assassination. Its a line that should only be crossed in the most dire of circumstances with the most compelling reasons. It's a line that should never be crossed when it comes to an American citizen.
So to be clear, if an American citizen goes to Iran and gets himself blown up when an Iranian nuclear facility gets hit, that's just too f***ing bad for him. If he lines up next to an Al Queda unit and catches a bullet for his trouble, that's his doing. If we are targetting him specifically for death, that's the line. And if Obama is doing that, I'll be right there calling for his Impeachment and pushing for a grand jury to indict him as soon as he's out of office. And if Bush were doing that, I'd be pushing for him to get a stint in the clink too. American citizens absolutely should not become a target of assassination by the US government. Once we head down that line, there's not turning back.
* * * *
What exactly is an ass-sucker, Liability?
* * * *
What exactly is an ass-sucker, Liability?
Look in the mirror, stupid.
