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

[Full-Auto]

you aren't answering the question..if they have so much evidence why not a single indictment? News articles aren't evidence..that is hearsay.

You need to ask the people that armed the cartels.

Video evidence.......Are you suggesting those were faked?

 

[Xchel]

you aren't answering the question..if they have so much evidence why not a single indictment? News articles aren't evidence..that is hearsay.

You need to ask the people that armed the cartels.

Video evidence.......Are you suggesting those were faked?

The people that armed the cartels is the US Government under the branch of the ATF...

Now that said...videos are not considered evidence..evidence after an indictment and presentment at trial is evidence...I am not saying he is innocent..just that we haven't been given proof he was guilty

 

[Full-Auto]

you aren't answering the question..if they have so much evidence why not a single indictment? News articles aren't evidence..that is hearsay.

You need to ask the people that armed the cartels.

Video evidence.......Are you suggesting those were faked?

The people that armed the cartels is the US Government under the branch of the ATF...

Now that said...videos are not considered evidence..evidence after an indictment and presentment at trial is evidence...I am not saying he is innocent..just that we haven't been given proof he was guilty

The requirement of evidence differs on the battle field. Always has.

 

[Xchel]

so why no indictment or conviction by a military tribunal? And you have one problem..there is no battlefield in Yemen and he wasn't caught on any battlefield...

 

[Avorysuds]

you aren't answering the question..if they have so much evidence why not a single indictment? News articles aren't evidence..that is hearsay.

You need to ask the people that armed the cartels.

Video evidence.......Are you suggesting those were faked?

Sad to see you like this Full Auto... The killing of this man had nothing to do with justice and in fact our country is now weaker because of it. What will you say when and if you ever disagree with someone the Government decides to kill?

 

[RadiomanATL]

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

Actually it's the fifth amendment that the founding fathers put in place that allows this action.

 

[Sunshine]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

 

[Intense]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

It would probably just be another thing to argue about for them with a split down the middle.

 

[Full-Auto]

so why no indictment or conviction by a military tribunal? And you have one problem..there is no battlefield in Yemen and he wasn't caught on any battlefield...

Again you must ask those that armed the cartels.

You may not like what went down. I dont.

However it was clear at our founding.

 

[Intense]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

I Truly don't believe that Obama would have acted, not sure that he was totally covered by Law.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

I Truly don't believe that Obama would have acted, not sure that he was totally covered by Law.

Yeah, Obama would've researched the legalities before he did it.

 

[Xchel]

so why no indictment or conviction by a military tribunal? And you have one problem..there is no battlefield in Yemen and he wasn't caught on any battlefield...

Again you must ask those that armed the cartels.

You may not like what went down. I dont.

However it was clear at our founding.

those that armed the cartels are the ATF you do know that right?

 

[Avorysuds]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

Was our public at danger? Prove it...

Are we in a real war with him? Prove it...

 

[Full-Auto]

so why no indictment or conviction by a military tribunal? And you have one problem..there is no battlefield in Yemen and he wasn't caught on any battlefield...

Again you must ask those that armed the cartels.

You may not like what went down. I dont.

However it was clear at our founding.

those that armed the cartels are the ATF you do know that right?

You think just the ATF is involved? That is easily disproven.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

Was our public at danger? Prove it...

Are we in a real war with him? Prove it...

Prove that our public is in danger from Al Qaeda?

There was this big deal about ten years back, you may have heard of it....

 

[Xchel]

Actually no it isn't easily disproven..it is quite easy to prove they WERE involved. Start with Operation Gunrunner.

 

[Sunshine]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

All you know about what the founding fathers thought is what they put down on paper. You can't read the mind of a dead person. And most have never even actually read the Constitution, let alone everything else they wrote. And I find it funny that every moron in the internet deems themselves capable of reading minds that are now dust.

You have completely missed MY point and that is that we have afforded Constitutional protections to foreign terrorists, even fitting your criterion, and we did not afford those same protections to an American citizen. You should be terrified about THAT!~ Who is the REAL terrorist? Perhaps it is our president who ignores the rights of our citizens.

You can ignore that all you want. But every citizen of this country should have a healthy concern about this procedural travesty.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Founding Fathers. LOL. That term has become almost trite in the world of internet discussion forums. Every poster assumes these, now turned to dust, men would automaticall agree with him/her whether there was such an issue present in that day or not. And the term is invoked as if invoking God. Too bad we can't just stick with the Constitiution. It is what it is.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

All you know about what the founding fathers thought is what they put down on paper. You can't read the mind of a dead person. And most have never even actually read the Constitution, let alone everything else they wrote. And I find it funny that every moron in the internet deems themselves capable of reading minds that are now dust.

You have completely missed MY point and that is that we have afforded Constitutional protections to foreign terrorists, even fitting your criterion, and we did not afford those same protections to an American citizen. You should be terrified about THAT!~ Who is the REAL terrorist? Perhaps it is our president who ignores the rights of our citizens.

You can ignore that all you want. But every citizen of this country should have a healthy concern about this procedural travesty.

Exactly. Which is what I am quoting. The constitution. Which you are having a problem grasping.

 

[Sunshine]

The founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Therefore the founding fathers put in place a device which specifically allows for this action.

I don't really know what you're talking about with automatically assuming they would agree. They laid it out in the constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"


Is the argument that this guy did not present a public danger?

All you know about what the founding fathers thought is what they put down on paper. You can't read the mind of a dead person. And most have never even actually read the Constitution, let alone everything else they wrote. And I find it funny that every moron in the internet deems themselves capable of reading minds that are now dust.

You have completely missed MY point and that is that we have afforded Constitutional protections to foreign terrorists, even fitting your criterion, and we did not afford those same protections to an American citizen. You should be terrified about THAT!~ Who is the REAL terrorist? Perhaps it is our president who ignores the rights of our citizens.

You can ignore that all you want. But every citizen of this country should have a healthy concern about this procedural travesty.

Exactly. Which is what I am quoting. The constitution. Which you are having a problem grasping.

But your spin is that the quoted passage is interpreted YOUR way, which you aren't grasping AT ALL!

And you have ignored the rest of my post.