'State Secrets' Cited By White House To Block Targeted Killings Suit...

[Charles_Main]

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

Yes I would mind him calling for the head of a Citizen. We are not talking about Citizens here.

From the article linked in the OP:

Anwar al-Awlaki....

He's said to be on a U.S. list that approves death or capture of key terrorist suspects. The 39-year-old's placement on the list in April made him the first U.S. citizen to land on the CIA targeted kill list.

The lawsuit also aimed to block the assassination green light against al-Awlaki, and compel the U.S. government to disclose the guidelines for putting a U.S. citizen on such a list.

Well then I have a big problem with it.

 

[Liability]

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.

You're still wrong. Under the system you support it should be:

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.

Repeating your erroneous "correction [sic]" does nothing to make you any less wrong.

Correctly stated, as I put it in the first place, it SHOULD read as follows:

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.

Thank you for failing to grasp reality and permitting me to once again correct your failed attempts to state your erroneous contentions.

 

[Liability]

Yes I would mind him calling for the head of a Citizen. We are not talking about Citizens here.

From the article linked in the OP:

Anwar al-Awlaki....

He's said to be on a U.S. list that approves death or capture of key terrorist suspects. The 39-year-old's placement on the list in April made him the first U.S. citizen to land on the CIA targeted kill list.

The lawsuit also aimed to block the assassination green light against al-Awlaki, and compel the U.S. government to disclose the guidelines for putting a U.S. citizen on such a list.

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 ****** 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?

 

[Full-Auto]

From the article linked in the OP:

Anwar al-Awlaki....

He's said to be on a U.S. list that approves death or capture of key terrorist suspects. The 39-year-old's placement on the list in April made him the first U.S. citizen to land on the CIA targeted kill list.

The lawsuit also aimed to block the assassination green light against al-Awlaki, and compel the U.S. government to disclose the guidelines for putting a U.S. citizen on such a list.

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 ****** 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?

So you are quite satisfied suspicion is all that is needed for the government to kill you. Wheres the phone? I think we could tell some stories about you. Now if I had powerful political connections there would be no doubt about your gulit.

 

[Liability]

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 ****** 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?

So you are quite satisfied suspicion is all that is needed for the government to kill you. Wheres the phone? I think we could tell some stories about you. Now if I had powerful political connections there would be no doubt about your gulit.

There's not only doubt about my gulit, but there's tons of doubt about any claim of guilt.

By contrast, there is zero doubt of the guilt of the ************ Alawki. He ******* puts the videos up himself. His behavior is a kind of a self-determined effort to prove his guilt before any accusation was ever made.

And in that hypothetical I had just offered, there isn't any ******* doubt of guilt either.

So, no. I didn't say or suggest ANYTHING about suspicion alone sufficing.

But nice try, Semi-autojammed. Not.

 

[Full-Auto]

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 ****** 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?

So you are quite satisfied suspicion is all that is needed for the government to kill you. Wheres the phone? I think we could tell some stories about you. Now if I had powerful political connections there would be no doubt about your gulit.

There's not only doubt about my gulit, but there's tons of doubt about any claim of guilt.

By contrast, there is zero doubt of the guilt of the ************ Alawki. He ******* puts the videos up himself. His behavior is a kind of a self-determined effort to prove his guilt before any accusation was ever made.

And in that hypothetical I had just offered, there isn't any ******* doubt of guilt either.

So, no. I didn't say or suggest ANYTHING about suspicion alone sufficing.

But nice try, Semi-autojammed. Not.

Who determined the guilt? Thats right the government. They are so honest!!!

 

[Liability]

So you are quite satisfied suspicion is all that is needed for the government to kill you. Wheres the phone? I think we could tell some stories about you. Now if I had powerful political connections there would be no doubt about your gulit.

There's not only doubt about my gulit, but there's tons of doubt about any claim of guilt.

By contrast, there is zero doubt of the guilt of the ************ Alawki. He ******* puts the videos up himself. His behavior is a kind of a self-determined effort to prove his guilt before any accusation was ever made.

And in that hypothetical I had just offered, there isn't any ******* doubt of guilt either.

So, no. I didn't say or suggest ANYTHING about suspicion alone sufficing.

But nice try, Semi-autojammed. Not.

Who determined the guilt? Thats right the government. They are so honest!!!

He established his own guilt. Try to educate yourself. There are MANY avenues open to you toward that end. Here's one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8TUEfNrBk]YouTube - A Message From Anwar Al-Awlaki[/ame]

 

[hjmick]

So let me see if I have this right...

The President now has the right to sentence American citizens to death, with no due process and no charges of any kind? And his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets?" And because the decisions are "state secrets" no court may rule on their legality? Is that about it?

I may need to rethink what I post...

 

[Liability]

So let me see if I have this right...

The President now has the right to sentence American citizens to death, with no due process and no charges of any kind? And his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets?" And because the decisions are "state secrets" no court may rule on their legality? Is that about it?

I may need to rethink what I post...

No. You do not in fact have "this right."

The President has the continuing authority to place some enemies on a list by which our forces are authorized to kill them.

And such a decision is all that different from the spy shit we've seen fictionalized over the years?

Does anybody truly imagine that it was ALL just fiction and the U.S. has never "sanctioned" a spy or foreign operative?

Of COURSE we have issued "hits" on some of our enemies in the past. And I don't doubt for a ******* second that that practice will continue. It is a certainty that we have lost some of our operatives in the past to such "sanctions" of other nations, too.

And now, we are at war. One of the ******* LEADERS of the identified enemy (al qaeda) is Alawki. His own ******* words have proved beyond ANY doubt that he is an enemy leader and an enemy agent.

The SOLE difference between that scumbag and some of the other assholes we have "hit" in the past is what? The fact that he was born in the borders of the United States? That's IT? This gives him immunity from an air-strike?

Are you people SERIOUS? HE, of all ******* people, is the ONLY one on PLANET EARTH who is immune from the sovereign power of the Untied States to reach out and kill an enemy with whom we are at war -- and all because of that accident of birth?

By the way, as I understand it, the Obama Administration MAY have "allowed" that IF Awlaki happens to be captured alive first, he may be criminally prosecuted. But if he is sanctioned first, then obviously there will be no criminal filings.

Oh the horror.

 

[QUENTIN]

"Obama supporters (and the conservatives who not coincidentally support him only in his Bush-replicating approach to the war on terror) who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.

For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law."

To accept the word of the president - when he expressly offers no evidence and says in fact any evidence is legally blocked from being seen - on trust alone that someone is a terrorist is to ignore the fact that of of all the people held as terrorists at Gitmo over the last decade, over 70% were found to be not guilty of terrorism - the government's claims were found to be wrong when they had to stand up to even the most meager of judicial reviews - and released. The government has shown they are more often wrong than right when it comes to decreeing that someone is a terrorist, yet there is a considerable faction who, seemingly unaffected by external stimuli and immune to learning from these mistakes, continue to invest absolute trust and assume total accuracy every time the government makes that decree.

"If the president says he's a terrorist, he's a terrorist." Period, full stop, that's all you need. Revealingly, this level of childlike belief in the infallibility of the president only extends to when he wants to kill, imprison, or torture Muslims. When the president says something positive about the economy or health care or his new policy, we all correctly remain skeptical and want to see the evidence ourselves to determine its veracity. Regardless of our political biases, nearly everyone living has come to recognize that politicians often lie and are often wrong and what they say should not reflexively be taken at face value. For some reason though, for a considerable portion of people (authoritarians) this sensible skepticism does not apply to matters of defense, no matter how many times the facts eventually demonstrate the government is wrong as a matter of routine. These people are now willing to have someone murdered far from any battlefield or war zone and not engaged in any hostile actions, merely because the president in the tone of pure dictator or king, has decreed it. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" be damned. Invoke the word "terrorism" and they'll line up behind whatever you say or do, even while clinging to being self-professed "Constitutionalists."

A simple question for those who see no problem in vesting this power in a single man without any outside checks, verification, adjudication, or accountability: If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death. Those people cannot be trusted on anything in the future. And you know who these people are on this board. However i really do appreciate all those who were honest & consistent in their stands on this tough issue. We may not agree but at least you were honest. Thanks.

 

[8537]

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)?

of course. We're a nation of laws and that's one of them.

Or we can be more like you want, a nation of fascists free to kill anyone they deem to be "waging war" against us.

 

[Liability]

"Obama supporters (and the conservatives who not coincidentally support him only in his Bush-replicating approach to the war on terror) who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.

For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law."

To accept the word of the president - when he expressly offers no evidence and says it fact any evidence is legally blocked from being seen - on trust alone that someone is a terrorist is to ignore the fact that of of all the people held as terrorists at Gitmo over the last decade, over 70% were found to be not guilty of terrorism - the government's claims were found to be wrong when they had to stand up to even the most meager of judicial reviews - and released. The government has shown they are more often wrong than right when it comes to decreeing that someone is a terrorists, yet there is a considerable faction who, seemingly unaffected by external stimuli, continue to invest absolute trust and assume total accuracy every time the government makes that decree.

"If the president says he's a terrorist, he's a terrorist." Period, full stop, that's all you need. Revealingly, this level of childlike belief in the infallibility of the president only extends to when he wants to kill, imprison, or torture Muslims. When the president says something positive about the economy or health care or his new policy, we all correctly remain skeptical and want to see the evidence ourselves to determine its veracity. Regardless of our political biases, nearly everyone living has come to recognize that politicians often lie and are often wrong and what they say should not reflexively be taken at face value. For some reason though, for a considerable portion of people (authoritarians) this sensible skepticism does not apply to matters of defense, no matter how many times the facts eventually demonstrate the government is wrong as a matter of routine. These people are now willing to have someone murdered far from any battlefield or war zone and not engaged in any hostile actions, merely because the president in the tone of pure dictator or king, has decreed it. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" be damned. Invoke the word "terrorism" and they'll line up behind whatever you say or do, even while clinging to being self-professed "Constitutionalists."

A simple question for those who see no problem in vesting this power in a single man without any outside checks, verification, adjudication, or accountability: If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do?

^ FALSE POST, Quentin.

Anybody with a functioning brain can easily and readily see for themselves that Alawki HAS done exactly what it is claimed he has done --

because he has spread his filth on video and the videos are readily available.

Thus, CONTRARY to the article's meaningless and bogus contention that supporters support this effort "without having the slightest idea whether [the allegations about guys like Alawki] actually true . . ." all of us can know with certainty that they ARE true.

By the way, what the **** do you imagine stops any President in our nation's history form doing some of these things in some irresponsible, willy-nilly fashion? This government has to invoke State Secret principles in Court precisely because it has zero capacity to keep secrets in the first place. Do you really (honestly?!?) think that if President Obama wanted to kill a political enemy for illegitimate reasons he wouldn't get ratted out within moments of trying to issue such an order?

 

[8537]

Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death.

That's quite a strawman. Liability seems to be the only one cheerleading this decision and I'm quite sure he wasn't ripping DA BOOOOOSH. In fact, he was licking das boot of Da Booosh.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death.

That's quite a strawman. Liability seems to be the only one cheerleading this decision and I'm quite sure he wasn't ripping DA BOOOOOSH. In fact, he was licking das boot of Da Booosh.

I take it you oppose this President's decision no? If so i applaud you for your honesty and consistency. However there are many others who are cheerleading for this President's decision when you just know if DA BOOOOOOSH or any Republican was in there right now,they would be screeching their opposition 24/7 and possibly even calling for the President's arrest. We all know who these people are on this board. Many are either silent on this issue or are cheerleading for this President. You don't seem to be doing that so kudos to you. Thanks.

 

[Liability]

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)?

of course. We're a nation of laws and that's one of them.

Or we can be more like you want, a nation of fascists free to kill anyone they deem to be "waging war" against us.

Because we are a nation of laws, in your silly view of what that means, such an illegal CITIZEN combatant doesn't get killed like other "soldiers" would. No no. According to your sophomoronic view of the world, the citizen-enemy who wages actual war against us is deserving of special treatment. HE gets to get arrested and booked and lodged in a jail and is entitled to a lawyer and discovery (**** that whole military and intelligence secrets thing) and he is entitled to a by-God trial by a jury of his peers with all manner of due process -- and if by some miracle we manage to convict his ass, then he gets endless appeals, three hots and cot and a lifetime supply of cable TV.

Yes. We ARE a nation of laws and there is NO law that says we cannot shoot to kill an enemy combatant -- citizen or not -- when he is engaged in an act of war.

In fact, you evidently might be shocked to realize that spies and saboteurs have ALWAYS been subject to summary execution when caught in the act. In WWII, interestingly enough, several Nazi ***** were captured and given a summary Military Tribunal. The President reviewed the proceedings -- the "review" took about three days -- and, for some of them, old FDR signed off on their executions.

Guys like you have no ability to handle a simple truth. "Due process" connotes ONLY that process which is DUE.

 

[8537]

Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death.

That's quite a strawman. Liability seems to be the only one cheerleading this decision and I'm quite sure he wasn't ripping DA BOOOOOSH. In fact, he was licking das boot of Da Booosh.

I take it you oppose this President's decision no?

I take it you haven't read the thread so I'm not sure where you arrived at the conclusion that people were supporting Obama here. I vehemently oppose this decision as I opposed similar decisions in the past by all presidents. I think it's a fundamental violation of the rights and of the constitution the president is sworn to uphold and I applaud the ACLU for stepping up to challenge it.

If so i applaud you for your honesty and consistency. However there are many others who are cheerleading for this President's decision when you just know if DA BOOOOOOSH or any Republican was in there right now,they would be screeching their opposition 24/7 and possibly even calling for the President's arrest.


We all know who these people are on this board. Many are either silent on this issue or are cheerleading for this President. You don't seem to be doing that so kudos to you. Thanks.

There are rumpswabs and partisan hacks in both camps, and issues like these usually expose them.

 

[8537]

Because we are a nation of laws, in your silly view of what that means, such an illegal CITIZEN combatant doesn't get killed like other "soldiers" would.

Illegal citizen combatant? More fun with names!

No no. According to your sophomoronic view of the world, the citizen-enemy who wages actual war against us is deserving of special treatment.

no, he is deserving of equal treatment....even if he's muslim!

HE gets to get arrested and booked and lodged in a jail and is entitled to a lawyer and discovery (**** that whole military and intelligence secrets thing) and he is entitled to a by-God trial by a jury of his peers with all manner of due process

not by God, by the constitution.

In fact, you evidently might be shocked to realize that spies and saboteurs have ALWAYS been subject to summary execution when caught in the act. In WWII, interestingly enough, several Nazi ***** were captured and given a summary Military Tribunal. The President reviewed the proceedings -- the "review" took about three days -- and, for some of them, old FDR signed off on their executions.

Interesting. So, they faced a military tribunal. So you support this guy facing a military tribunal? Oh wait, no you don't.

Guys like you have no ability to handle a simple truth.

"Guys" like you would sell your freedom like a cheap whore if it meant you could stop pissing yourself every time the government scared you. Do you have to wear a Depends when the threat level goes to Orange?

 

[Liability]

Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death.

That's quite a strawman. Liability seems to be the only one cheerleading this decision and I'm quite sure he wasn't ripping DA BOOOOOSH. In fact, he was licking das boot of Da Booosh.

That you are incapable of appreciating consistency is duly noted.

I have often been highly critical of President Obama., But I have not hesitated to commend him when, imho, he has made a few very much needed and correct calls.

Why would I "rip" President Bush for the same kind of thing, then?

You make no sense.

I also haven't been cheerleading this particular act, either. Unlike you, I can make distinctions. Is the "authorized to kill" list in all respects troubling, for example? Or is it ONLY troubling when a person who is a U.S. citizen lands on the list?

I HAVE absolutely asked some questions to expose the issues to a more defined light. Your objection is noted, but stupid.

Was President Roosevelt "wrong" for authorizing the execution of German saboteurs who had gotten a military tribunal? If you say "yes," then you are consistent in that narrow belief, but an imbecile nonetheless. If you say "no," then your inconsistency at least permits you the benefit of a glimmer of rationality.

If you say that the prompt execution of unlawful enemy combatants (like the Nazi saboteurs on WWII) did NOT require the intervention of an American Court of Law (i.e., military tribunals sufficed) then you need to explain why it wouldn't be permissible to do the same for an illegal enemy combatant like Alawki.

 

[8537]

Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death.

That's quite a strawman. Liability seems to be the only one cheerleading this decision and I'm quite sure he wasn't ripping DA BOOOOOSH. In fact, he was licking das boot of Da Booosh.

That you are incapable of appreciating consistency is duly noted.

Oh, I respect the consistency. I just think you're wrong.