Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[Uncensored2008]

Dillinger was not served process at all. He was shot in the back of the head without warning.

Uncensored, what is with your communist-like propaganda? Are you a Marxist?

You're such a ******* liar.

Typical of you Khmer Rouge types.

{ When the film let out, Purvis[26] stood by the front door and signaled Dillinger's exit by lighting a cigar. Both he and the other agents reported that Dillinger turned his head and looked directly at the agent as he walked by, glanced across the street, then moved ahead of his female companions, reached into his pocket but failed to extract his gun,[5]353 and ran into a nearby alley.[24] Other accounts state Dillinger ignored a command to surrender, whipped out his gun, then headed for the alley. Agents already had the alley closed off, but Dillinger was determined to shoot it out.[27]}

John Dillinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jakematters the fucktard troll, spanked again...

 

[Goodoledays]

As long as nobody gets waterboarded everything's fine. C'mon man!

They're dropping water balloons on them. BIG water balloons.

Only thing is they're skipping the water and replacing it with explosives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a difference between someone who is wanted for a crime being killed during apprehension and someone who hasn't committed a crime, isn't planning on committing a crime and has no evidence that they did anything beyond having breakfast that day killed because the presidebt feels like it.

There is a process for considering an American Citizen an enemy combatant and imposing a death sentence. Bush did it with Adam Ghadan. obama can't be bothered with the law. He isn't above the law. obama is INSTEAD of the law.

So American human shields who went to Baghdad in 2003 should have been able to legally halt Bush from starting the war with Iraq,

because bombing Baghdad risked killing innocent Americans?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact of the matter your wiki is a poor source. Why don't you look up what really happened, which was the agent stepped up behind Dillinger and shot him in the back of the head.

Your communist-like lying will not help you here, UncensoredPolPot.

 

[Trajan]

There is a difference between someone who is wanted for a crime being killed during apprehension and someone who hasn't committed a crime, isn't planning on committing a crime and has no evidence that they did anything beyond having breakfast that day killed because the presidebt feels like it.

There is a process for considering an American Citizen an enemy combatant and imposing a death sentence. Bush did it with Adam Ghadan. obama can't be bothered with the law. He isn't above the law. obama is INSTEAD of the law.

So American human shields who went to Baghdad in 2003 should have been able to legally halt Bush from starting the war with Iraq,

because bombing Baghdad risked killing innocent Americans?

I forget about the human shield fiasco......

new Obama motto- "don't drown'em, kill'em..."


here; this one goes out for all the Uber Hypocrites.......you know who you are........


from the WH website, still there..




On May 29, 2009, Obama speech at the National Archives:



"Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass. "

more at..
Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09 | The White House


"Let me be clear"...yea be clear....

 

[Uncensored2008]

So American human shields who went to Baghdad in 2003 should have been able to legally halt Bush from starting the war with Iraq,

because bombing Baghdad risked killing innocent Americans?

How many were killed, comrade?

Names and dates?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The fact of the matter your wiki is a poor source. Why don't you look up what really happened, which was the agent stepped up behind Dillinger and shot him in the back of the head.

Your communist-like lying will not help you here, UncensoredPolPot.

**** off, you stupid troll.

 

[clevergirl]

Show where I hated drone strikes under Bush. I have always supported technology in lieu of troop lives and limbs.

I oppose torture, yes, as any civilized person does.

Yeah, Jake, let's just kill 'em without a trial!!!

Can't we just pour water on them and make them talk? It's so much more humane!

No, kill the bastards...to hell with intelligence gathering...to hell with gaining the upper-hand...kill the MF'rs! That's the Obama-way~ You know that Constitutional Scholar

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a difference between someone who is wanted for a crime being killed during apprehension and someone who hasn't committed a crime, isn't planning on committing a crime and has no evidence that they did anything beyond having breakfast that day killed because the presidebt feels like it.

There is a process for considering an American Citizen an enemy combatant and imposing a death sentence. Bush did it with Adam Ghadan. obama can't be bothered with the law. He isn't above the law. obama is INSTEAD of the law.

So American human shields who went to Baghdad in 2003 should have been able to legally halt Bush from starting the war with Iraq,

because bombing Baghdad risked killing innocent Americans?

I forget about the human shield fiasco......

new Obama motto- "don't drown'em, kill'em..."


here; this one goes out for all the Uber Hypocrites.......you know who you are........


from the WH website, still there..




On May 29, 2009, Obama speech at the National Archives:



"Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass. "

more at..
Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09 | The White House


"Let me be clear"...yea be clear....

So you disagree with the President's statement that we are at war with Al Qaeda.

The fact is we are at war with Al Qaeda, and thus anyone, including someone with American citizenship, who joins Al Qaeda becomes an enemy combatant and can be killed no differently than in the manner we've killed hundreds of Al Qaeda combatants.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So American human shields who went to Baghdad in 2003 should have been able to legally halt Bush from starting the war with Iraq,

because bombing Baghdad risked killing innocent Americans?

How many were killed, comrade?

Names and dates?

Don't dodge the point. And try posting like an adult for 5 minutes.

 

[Trajan]

So American human shields who went to Baghdad in 2003 should have been able to legally halt Bush from starting the war with Iraq,

because bombing Baghdad risked killing innocent Americans?

I forget about the human shield fiasco......

new Obama motto- "don't drown'em, kill'em..."


here; this one goes out for all the Uber Hypocrites.......you know who you are........


from the WH website, still there..




On May 29, 2009, Obama speech at the National Archives:



"Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass. "

more at..
Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09 | The White House


"Let me be clear"...yea be clear....

So you disagree with the President's statement that we are at war with Al Qaeda.

Did I say I disagree?

The fact is we are at war with Al Qaeda, and thus anyone, including someone with American citizenship, who joins Al Qaeda becomes an enemy combatant and can be killed no differently than in the manner we've killed hundreds of Al Qaeda combatants.

...an AQ affiliate overran a Consulate and killed an ambassador , a 33 year first, BUT wait, there was no AQ, no terrorism, it was a video....

NO NO NO wait. I got bin laden though, AQ is decimated!!!!!




so we ARE still fighting AQ and the war on terror? which ******* is it?


Never mind, doesn't matter.

you're a hypocritical Bozo of massive proportions...massive.... I mean seriously, have you no shame? At all?

 

[RosieS]

Yeah, Jake, let's just kill 'em without a trial!!!

Can't we just pour water on them and make them talk? It's so much more humane!

No, kill the bastards...to hell with intelligence gathering...to hell with gaining the upper-hand...kill the MF'rs! That's the Obama-way~ You know that Constitutional Scholar

Yeah...the one who knows that treason is defined in the Constitution. The one that knows what a war criminal is.

And one that is risking computer chips and circuit boards to eliminate a war enemy that participated and plotted with Nidal Hassan in carrying out the Ft. Hood massacre.

Yeah, I have no problem with a dead American traitor with zero dead soldiers being risked to make him dead.

Nor should you.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Uncensored2008]

Don't dodge the point. And try posting like an adult for 5 minutes.

So, none then?

You were just erecting a straw man in hopes that you could deflect legitimate criticism away from your god?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't dodge the point. And try posting like an adult for 5 minutes.

So, none then?

You were just erecting a straw man in hopes that you could deflect legitimate criticism away from your god?

No it was a hypothetical. You're asserting that every American anywhere in the world is innocent and entitled to due process and cannot be targeted for bombardment.

That would mean that any American who placed himself in a place targeted for bombardment would make that bombardment an illegal, unconstutional violation of that American's rights.

Is that not your position? If not, why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I forget about the human shield fiasco......

new Obama motto- "don't drown'em, kill'em..."


here; this one goes out for all the Uber Hypocrites.......you know who you are........


from the WH website, still there..




On May 29, 2009, Obama speech at the National Archives:



"Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass. "

more at..
Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09 | The White House


"Let me be clear"...yea be clear....

Did I say I disagree?

The fact is we are at war with Al Qaeda, and thus anyone, including someone with American citizenship, who joins Al Qaeda becomes an enemy combatant and can be killed no differently than in the manner we've killed hundreds of Al Qaeda combatants.

...an AQ affiliate overran a Consulate and killed an ambassador , a 33 year first, BUT wait, there was no AQ, no terrorism, it was a video....

NO NO NO wait. I got bin laden though, AQ is decimated!!!!!




so we ARE still fighting AQ and the war on terror? which ******* is it?


Never mind, doesn't matter.

you're a hypocritical Bozo of massive proportions...massive.... I mean seriously, have you no shame? At all?

I've supported the targeting killing of Al Qaeda as a military strategy ever since 9/11.

That's pretty much the entire time. What's hypocritical about supporting it now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I forget about the human shield fiasco......

new Obama motto- "don't drown'em, kill'em..."


here; this one goes out for all the Uber Hypocrites.......you know who you are........


from the WH website, still there..




On May 29, 2009, Obama speech at the National Archives:



"Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass. "

more at..
Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09 | The White House


"Let me be clear"...yea be clear....

Did I say I disagree?

You either disagreed or you're engaging in classic trolling by making off topic inflammatory posts without actually taking a position on the issue at hand.

Which is it?

 

[Darkwind]

"Due process" doesn't really apply in a combat zone. Suspected bad guy doing bad things = dead bad guy. An American citizen in a group of known Taliban would give the Taliban blanket protection from any missle or artillery attacks if due process were applied.

It's not limited to just combat zones.

Obama has said that he has this authority anywhere in the world. And he didn't exclude inside the borders of the United States.

And exactly when did you want to end the AUMF?

Or the idiocy of Enemy Combatants?

Or the dangerous Patriot Act?

No?

Of course it doesn't surprise me.

Because here you are attacking the President.

Not the underlying "powers" that have been afforded TO the President.

Not even close. The best you can do for comparison is suspension of Habeas Corpus by Abraham Lincoln.

Be sure to put some ice on that pulled muscle.

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The FBI violated who's rights?

Everything the FBI does violates someone's rights.

Scumbag kidnaps a child. FBI discovers where the scumbag kidnapper is. They rescue the child and arrest the scumbag.

I'm not seeing a violation of anybody's rights.

The funny thing about rights is that even scumbags have them, and courts make sure the FBI doesn't get to egregious when they go about violating their rights by arresting them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No it was a hypothetical.

No, it's not hypothetical. You are attempting to cover for the crime of your god with a claim that "BOOOOSHHHH did it too."

So name these human shields that were killed during the Iraq invasion?

Sean Penn (I sure hope so) Ben Afflick? Matt Damon?

If you can't name any, why not?

You're asserting that every American anywhere in the world is innocent and entitled to due process and cannot be targeted for bombardment.

I alone will determine what I assert. You of the Khmer Rouge do not assign my views to me.

IF an American is in a combat zone and is collateral damage during a military operation, shit happens.

But that is FAR different than Obama assuming the role of absolute dictator and order the killing of American citizens without warrant, charge, judicial review, arrest, or any of those other inconveniences that civilized countries use.

Obama is a thug and a criminal. He has more in common with Pol Pot and Idi Amin than he does with Jefferson, Washington, or Adams.

That would mean that any American who placed himself in a place targeted for bombardment would make that bombardment an illegal, unconstutional violation of that American's rights.

Is that not your position? If not, why not?

My positions are clear and based on the United States Constitution, just as yours are based on ending said Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The FBI violated who's rights?

Everything the FBI does violates someone's rights.

Prove it.

What would you accept as proof? I can cite every singe Supreme Court decision on every criminal case they have ever reviewed to prove that courts always balance individual rights and the power of the government to do things. They almost always side with the government, but they admit that it is a violation of someone's rights every time the government acts. They just justify it with talk about the collective being more important.