Wow. Yet ANOTHER instance of me giving props to Pres. Obama

Liability

Locked Account.
Jun 28, 2009
35,447
5,183
48
Mansion in Ravi's Head
No joke. Every once in a blue moon, I unceremoniously break with my general policy of unrelenting criticism of President Obama. Generally, I find him to be the Asshat in Chief.

HOWEVER, when he does something right, it seems only fair to acknowledge that, too.

I see (linked off of Drudge) that the President's lawyers have staked out a legal claim that Americans who take up arms with the likes of al qaeda against the Unite States are not immune from being targeted AS enemy combatants.

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. * * * *

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US - Yahoo! News

Good for them and good for President Obama.

I say they (and the President) are exactly right on the mark!

:clap2:
 
I say they (and the TS) are totalitarian asshats!

Because when AMERICANS engage in acts of war against the United States, they deserve either a free pass or to be tried within the limits of a criminal justice legal system?

You are a bit of an asshat, apparently.

Stop being a racist.

Praise your President very much.
 
who gets to decide if someone has indeed taken up arms with al qaeda?

who gets to decide if someone is an unlawful combatant?

Me.

Personally.

As it should be.

If you'd stopped and thought it through BEFORE 'asking' that "question," there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't have publicly embarrassed yourself like that.
 
who gets to decide if someone has indeed taken up arms with al qaeda?

who gets to decide if someone is an unlawful combatant?

Me.

Personally.

As it should be.

If you'd stopped and thought it through BEFORE 'asking' that "question," there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't have publicly embarrassed yourself like that.

i should have known that the decision making is done by you.

silly me.
 
Yes, but who determines whether they are committing an act of war?

SOMETIMES the answer is painfully obvious.

Like the underwear bomber.

When the smoke pours out of his panties and he's burned his willie, and the prompt rendering of medical assistance reveals that he'd been wearing a Depends brand panty bomb, THERE ISN'T really any question about whether or not he'd been engaged in an intended act of war.
 
who gets to decide if someone has indeed taken up arms with al qaeda?

who gets to decide if someone is an unlawful combatant?

Me.

Personally.

As it should be.

If you'd stopped and thought it through BEFORE 'asking' that "question," there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't have publicly embarrassed yourself like that.

i should have known that the decision making is done by you.

silly me.

It WAS pretty fucking obvious.

Good of you to admit as much.
 
Yes, but who determines whether they are committing an act of war?

SOMETIMES the answer is painfully obvious.

Like the underwear bomber.

When the smoke pours out of his panties and he's burned his willie, and the prompt rendering of medical assistance reveals that he'd been wearing a Depends brand panty bomb, THERE ISN'T really any question about whether or not he'd been engaged in an intended act of war.

those cases, like al-awlaki are not the problem.
 
Yes, but who determines whether they are committing an act of war?

SOMETIMES the answer is painfully obvious.

Like the underwear bomber.

When the smoke pours out of his panties and he's burned his willie, and the prompt rendering of medical assistance reveals that he'd been wearing a Depends brand panty bomb, THERE ISN'T really any question about whether or not he'd been engaged in an intended act of war.

those cases, like al-awlaki are not the problem.

Sirrah! No quibbling. Quibbling is for sissies and bed-wetters.
 
SOMETIMES the answer is painfully obvious.

Like the underwear bomber.

When the smoke pours out of his panties and he's burned his willie, and the prompt rendering of medical assistance reveals that he'd been wearing a Depends brand panty bomb, THERE ISN'T really any question about whether or not he'd been engaged in an intended act of war.

those cases, like al-awlaki are not the problem.

Sirrah! No quibbling. Quibbling is for sissies and bed-wetters.


they grey zones are the interesting and dangerous zones.
 
those cases, like al-awlaki are not the problem.

Sirrah! No quibbling. Quibbling is for sissies and bed-wetters.


they grey zones are the interesting and dangerous zones.

Quibblers reside in the grey (or is it "gray"?) zones.

If a suspected enemy soldier is approaching you in a war zone, do you stop and say to yourself, "Gee. That COULD be an innocent lost civilian approaching me through that forbidden area, so I best hold my fire!"? Or do you, at a relatively safe distance, shoot the sumbitch to avoid the prospect that he will blow up his vest-bomb thereby snuffing out you and your comrades-in-arms?

If you shoot him, and he turns out to have been a fucking innocent civilian lost American, do you then say "Oh shit. I MEANT to give him a fair 'trial' and assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?"
 
As a soldier I take an oath to my God and Country that I will defend and protect America against all enemies foreign and domestic. A man who resinds their allegence with the US, moves to Yemen and declares Jehad on America and "persuades" others to take up arms against America and it's citizens is an enemy of the state. Regardless as to wheather he still holds his American citizenship, he is an enemy, foreign or domestic in my eyes does not matter. What matters is that we stop radicals from completing their intentions of disrupting American lives through violence. This is not to say that I also believe that protesters are enemies of the state, they're not. They have the right, given to them through the BOR, to demonstrate peaceably where ever they want; and I encourage that. I will defend America with my life when someone foreign or domestic is trying to kill YOU for no other reason than because YOU are an American with seperate morals and values than them. If you disagree, I welcome that as well. I fight for you god and governed right to feel and express that, even irrationally.
 
Sirrah! No quibbling. Quibbling is for sissies and bed-wetters.


they grey zones are the interesting and dangerous zones.

Quibblers reside in the grey (or is it "gray"?) zones.

If a suspected enemy soldier is approaching you in a war zone, do you stop and say to yourself, "Gee. That COULD be an innocent lost civilian approaching me through that forbidden area, so I best hold my fire!"? Or do you, at a relatively safe distance, shoot the sumbitch to avoid the prospect that he will blow up his vest-bomb thereby snuffing out you and your comrades-in-arms?

If you shoot him, and he turns out to have been a fucking innocent civilian lost American, do you then say "Oh shit. I MEANT to give him a fair 'trial' and assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?"


grey is BE, gray is AE.

the unlawful combatant travesty is manifest in gitmo, and bagram.
that was the prelude.

the next step is to declare a shoot to kill order for persons deemed to have taken up arms with al qaeda, or "the enemy".

it now extends to US citizens.

irrelevant to me actually.

i just observe that it just needs "someone" to declare another person to be "the enemy" to justify executing this person.

this solely depends on the "someone".

i don't trust "someone".

"someone" needs to be closely controlled.
 
Yes, but who determines whether they are committing an act of war?

SOMETIMES the answer is painfully obvious.

Like the underwear bomber.

When the smoke pours out of his panties and he's burned his willie, and the prompt rendering of medical assistance reveals that he'd been wearing a Depends brand panty bomb, THERE ISN'T really any question about whether or not he'd been engaged in an intended act of war.

What about when the answer isn't obvious?
 
they grey zones are the interesting and dangerous zones.

Quibblers reside in the grey (or is it "gray"?) zones.

If a suspected enemy soldier is approaching you in a war zone, do you stop and say to yourself, "Gee. That COULD be an innocent lost civilian approaching me through that forbidden area, so I best hold my fire!"? Or do you, at a relatively safe distance, shoot the sumbitch to avoid the prospect that he will blow up his vest-bomb thereby snuffing out you and your comrades-in-arms?

If you shoot him, and he turns out to have been a fucking innocent civilian lost American, do you then say "Oh shit. I MEANT to give him a fair 'trial' and assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?"


grey is BE, gray is AE.

the unlawful combatant travesty is manifest in gitmo, and bagram.
that was the prelude.

the next step is to declare a shoot to kill order for persons deemed to have taken up arms with al qaeda, or "the enemy".

it now extends to US citizens.

irrelevant to me actually.

i just observe that it just needs "someone" to declare another person to be "the enemy" to justify executing this person.

this solely depends on the "someone".

i don't trust "someone".

"someone" needs to be closely controlled.

Sometimes, outside those gray (or gray) areas, the answer is painfully obvious.

President Obama used to do cocaine. The best evidence of that? The asswipe SAID so himself.

al-Awlaki was an American who DID take up with al qaeda in time of war AGAINST America. The best evidence of that? Again, his own fucking words.

Now, steering you BACK to the question (and the hypothetical scenario which you seem to have ducked):

IF the guy is approaching you in the war zone, through that forbidden area, do you take the chance that he is going to blow the shit out of you and your comrades in arms with his al qaeda approved martyr vest bomb (ask for it by name!) OR do you shoot the guy from a safe distance?
 
Last edited:
@Liability-the whole war time senario you put up, have you been in a situation where that applies? Have you been on patroles in the same area week after week seeing a buddy getting turned into hamburger meat 40 feet away from you? Have you seen your point man meet his maker when a man in a dress comes up to him saying, "No shoot, No shoot, he that way!" If not, please I emplore you to refrain from making judgements on decisions that were made in an environment that you have never experienced and your only contact with is 8K miles away through a TV.
 
No joke. Every once in a blue moon, I unceremoniously break with my general policy of unrelenting criticism of President Obama. Generally, I find him to be the Asshat in Chief.

HOWEVER, when he does something right, it seems only fair to acknowledge that, too.

I see (linked off of Drudge) that the President's lawyers have staked out a legal claim that Americans who take up arms with the likes of al qaeda against the Unite States are not immune from being targeted AS enemy combatants.

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. * * * *

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US - Yahoo! News

Good for them and good for President Obama.

I say they (and the President) are exactly right on the mark!

:clap2:

Yep.

It's called "treason".

For a reason..
 

Forum List

Back
Top