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

[High_Gravity]

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

If thats what you need to hear to sleep better at night, than YES, IT WAS ANWAR AL-AWLAKI IN THE VIDEOS, I SWEAR TO GOD.

Whats your expertise in the filming industry?

I recorded an ex girlfriend sucking me off before, thats about my only experience in the filming industry.

 

[High_Gravity]

Can you without a doubt say that was the accused in the video? What is your expertise in the filming industry?

LMAO! Wow, you must be an ACLU Lawyer representing the Awlaki clan, cause this is just nuts.

I'm just trying to make a point a lawyer who is trained to deal with this type of defense would tare those videos a part especially when a person life is at stake.

How would a lawyer tear those videos apart?

 

[Liability]

LMAO! Wow, you must be an ACLU Lawyer representing the Awlaki clan, cause this is just nuts.

I'm just trying to make a point a lawyer who is trained to deal with this type of defense would tare those videos a part especially when a person life is at stake.

How would a lawyer tear those videos apart?

"Your Honor. Ladies and Germs. I contend that the Gubmint has FAILED top prove beyond a reasonable doubt that al-Awlaki as depicted on those tapes WAS al-Awlaki in real life!

Where's the DNA?

Where are the fingerprints?

Where is the hair and fiber analysis?

Haven't you people ever SEEN CSI Miami?"​

Ok. Reality time again.

I hate to wreck the moment, but ORDINARILY, when an issue is not even in doubt, there's no good reason to present evidence to "prove" it.

 

[Liability]

If thats what you need to hear to sleep better at night, than YES, IT WAS ANWAR AL-AWLAKI IN THE VIDEOS, I SWEAR TO GOD.

Whats your expertise in the filming industry?

I recorded an ex girlfriend sucking me off before, thats about my only experience in the filming industry.

that was YOU?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry.

Your premise is now too silly to address on a serious level.

Your honor would you instruct the witness to answer the question?

Please. Your silly "question" is absurd.

There is no serious question to answer.

If you have to "make" your entire case on that ridiculous "premise," then you might as well just admit you were wrong from jump street on this topic.

It's not making a case it's just making a portion of an argument
Can you without a doubt say that was anwar in the video and not someone that looked like him?

Please. Your silly "question" is absurd.

There is no serious question to answer.

How is it absurd? Are you an expert on the filming industry?

 

[Liability]

Your honor would you instruct the witness to answer the question?

Please. Your silly "question" is absurd.

There is no serious question to answer.

If you have to "make" your entire case on that ridiculous "premise," then you might as well just admit you were wrong from jump street on this topic.

It's not making a case it's just making a portion of an argument
Can you without a doubt say that was anwar in the video and not someone that looked like him?

Please. Your silly "question" is absurd.

There is no serious question to answer.

How is it absurd? Are you an expert on the filming industry?

There isn't any question and there never was any question that al-Awlaki made those tapes. He himself articulated his beliefs and why he had chosen to go to war with America.

One need not be an "expert" in the realm of fine arts to accept the man at his own word.

Your premise remains quite laughable.

 

[High_Gravity]

Whats your expertise in the filming industry?

I recorded an ex girlfriend sucking me off before, thats about my only experience in the filming industry.

that was YOU?

LOL yes, although it was my ex that did the hard work.

 

[Foxfyre]

LMAO! Wow, you must be an ACLU Lawyer representing the Awlaki clan, cause this is just nuts.

I'm just trying to make a point a lawyer who is trained to deal with this type of defense would tare those videos a part especially when a person life is at stake.

How would a lawyer tear those videos apart?

The fact is none of us KNOW for sure what the motive was to assassinate Anwar al-Alwaki. All we can go on is the evidence a number of us have seen--which is substantial--that al-Alwaki was committing treason in a most definite and observable manner, that this was verified by British authorities, American authorities, and YouTube (who furnished the account) and has been disputed by NO credible media anywhere. As it is imperative upon the President and Congress to defend and protect our American servicemen and other citizens as much as is reasonably possible and our American citizens here at home, we have no reason to believe the motive to assassinate al-Alwaki was anything but that.

 

[saveliberty]

First the argument I heard was there wasn't a way to complete due process. That failed. Now we are arguing they might not be found guilty? This guy posted videos online. Why so bent on taking Constitutional rights from US citizens?

So if you happen to be born on US Soil, you have a constitutional right to terrorize fellow citizens? this guy met with him and trained the Nigerian underwear bomber who flew into Detroit, he also had discussions with the Fort Hood shooter and motivated him, what more would this guy have to before enough is enough?

Nnice strawman. You have a Constitutional right to due process. I explained how that applied in this case. I also think it is rather straight forward he was guilty. Just complete the process is all I'm saying. There certainly was time to do just that.

 

[Liability]

First the argument I heard was there wasn't a way to complete due process. That failed. Now we are arguing they might not be found guilty? This guy posted videos online. Why so bent on taking Constitutional rights from US citizens?

So if you happen to be born on US Soil, you have a constitutional right to terrorize fellow citizens? this guy met with him and trained the Nigerian underwear bomber who flew into Detroit, he also had discussions with the Fort Hood shooter and motivated him, what more would this guy have to before enough is enough?

Nnice strawman. You have a Constitutional right to due process. I explained how that applied in this case. I also think it is rather straight forward he was guilty. Just complete the process is all I'm saying. There certainly was time to do just that.

Your claim that he had any Constitutional right to due process is a major premise, but it is unsupported.

You did not "explain" how "it" allegedly "applied." You made another claim. It, too, is unsupported.

 

[Sunshine]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

I was just thinking about this a couple of days ago. As the election approaches every American should be reminded that Obama has set the precedent for the American president to be judge, jury, and executioner without due process of law.

That being said, this guy probably got what he deserved. But that isn't really the point is it? The point is that this was not done the AMERICAN way, that being with due process of law.

I really don't care what anyone else thinks about this. This man was an American citizen. And as such, was entitled to due process of law. It has been years since the SCOTUS pronounced terrorism to be a crime, not an act of war. A crime is prosecuted in a court of law.

This killing has changed the world for every American on the earth today and for every American to ever walk the earth until the end of time. IMO, Obama is an enemy of the state at least as dangerous, probably more so, than this guy.

 

[High_Gravity]

First the argument I heard was there wasn't a way to complete due process. That failed. Now we are arguing they might not be found guilty? This guy posted videos online. Why so bent on taking Constitutional rights from US citizens?

So if you happen to be born on US Soil, you have a constitutional right to terrorize fellow citizens? this guy met with him and trained the Nigerian underwear bomber who flew into Detroit, he also had discussions with the Fort Hood shooter and motivated him, what more would this guy have to before enough is enough?

Nnice strawman. You have a Constitutional right to due process. I explained how that applied in this case. I also think it is rather straight forward he was guilty. Just complete the process is all I'm saying. There certainly was time to do just that.

If he was interested in "due process" he could have turned himself in to the American embassy in Sanna, case closed.

 

[High_Gravity]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

I was just thinking about this a couple of days ago. As the election approaches every American should be reminded that Obama has set the precedent for the American president to be judge, jury, and executioner without due process of law.

That being said, this guy probably got what he deserved. But that isn't really the point is it? The point is that this was not done the AMERICAN way, that being with due process of law.

I really don't care what anyone else thinks about this. This man was an American citizen. And as such, was entitled to due process of law. It has been years since the SCOTUS pronounced terrorism to be a crime, not an act of war. A crime is prosecuted in a court of law.

This killing has changed the world for every American on the earth today and for every American to ever walk the earth until the end of time. IMO, Obama is an enemy of the state at least as dangerous, probably more so, than this guy.

You guys keep talking about giving this clown due process, how are we supposed to do that when he is hiding in the foothills of Yemen? should we just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy, read him his rights?

 

[Foxfyre]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

I was just thinking about this a couple of days ago. As the election approaches every American should be reminded that Obama has set the precedent for the American president to be judge, jury, and executioner without due process of law.

That being said, this guy probably got what he deserved. But that isn't really the point is it? The point is that this was not done the AMERICAN way, that being with due process of law.

I really don't care what anyone else thinks about this. This man was an American citizen. And as such, was entitled to due process of law. It has been years since the SCOTUS pronounced terrorism to be a crime, not an act of war. A crime is prosecuted in a court of law.

This killing has changed the world for every American on the earth today and for every American to ever walk the earth until the end of time. IMO, Obama is an enemy of the state at least as dangerous, probably more so, than this guy.

I'm sorry but I was born in Texas and have lived in the USA all my life. I qualify as a Daughter of the American Revolution and as a Daughter of the Confederacy--you don't get any more 'citizen' than I am.

But the day I announce treasonous intent against the people and government of the USA, the day I try to rally others to kill innocent Americans and/or overthrow the government, the day I take up arms with intent to kill innocent Americans and friends of Americans, and I do this with protection of terrorists in a foreign country, I forfeit all right to 'due process' and I am a legitimate target as an enemy of state.

I am entitled to due process only if I give myself up to the proper authorities or if I can be captured without undue risk to life of innocent people.

 

[High_Gravity]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

I was just thinking about this a couple of days ago. As the election approaches every American should be reminded that Obama has set the precedent for the American president to be judge, jury, and executioner without due process of law.

That being said, this guy probably got what he deserved. But that isn't really the point is it? The point is that this was not done the AMERICAN way, that being with due process of law.

I really don't care what anyone else thinks about this. This man was an American citizen. And as such, was entitled to due process of law. It has been years since the SCOTUS pronounced terrorism to be a crime, not an act of war. A crime is prosecuted in a court of law.

This killing has changed the world for every American on the earth today and for every American to ever walk the earth until the end of time. IMO, Obama is an enemy of the state at least as dangerous, probably more so, than this guy.

I'm sorry but I was born in Texas and have lived in the USA all my life. I qualify as a Daughter of the American Revolution and as a Daughter of the Confederacy--you don't get any more 'citizen' than I am.

But the day I announce treasonous intent against the people and government of the USA, the day I try to rally others to kill innocent Americans and/or overthrow the government, the day I take up arms with intent to kill innocent Americans and friends of Americans, and I do this with protection of terrorists in a foreign country, I forfeit all right to 'due process' and I am a legitimate target as an enemy of state.