Which will happen first, the Republicans destroy the rule of law or the rule of law will destroy ...

[Noah Abrams]

So, we should have treated Al Awlaki differently than the other terrorists fighting against the Yemeni govt at the time because he was an American citizen?

Outside US jurisdiction, which he fled, he was just another terrorist. He was free to assert his rights as an American at any US consulate or embassy & would have enjoyed the protections of our laws.

That is a remarkably ignorant post. But then liberals aren't very knowledgeable about constitution anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

This idealism served this country well for ~230 years. Now this common sense has opened up the the executive branch to be judge and executioner. It isn't a matter of when, it is a matter of who will decide to utilize this legal framework to kill citizens without trial.

Because Obama.

 

[Thebobo]

That is a remarkably ignorant post. But then liberals aren't very knowledgeable about constitution anyway.

Well explain why is such and ignorant post.

 

[Jhhnn]

That is a remarkably ignorant post. But then liberals aren't very knowledgeable about constitution anyway.

I love all the mock piety from conservatives because Obama. Al Awlaki was actively engaged in insurrection against the Yemeni govt we supported. You know, an Al Qaeda terrorist, a very effective recruiter & inspirational figure for them. We didn't need any more of a legal framework to kill him than we do for any other terrorist in similar circumstances. Yemeni law applies in Yemen, not US law. They wanted him dead & we obliged. Civil war is like that. Like I said, if he wanted the protections of American law he could have walked into any consulate or embassy to receive it.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Well explain why is such and ignorant post.

A U.S. citizen does not lose his constitutionally protected rights if they are outside the United States. It does not give the govt any right to assassinate them. Both the right and left (again, two sides of the same coin) have been trampling over the rights of people in the name of war on terror, we know that. And this fearful populace - terrified of even an unknown car on the street - is all too willing.

 

[Noah Abrams]

I love all the mock piety from conservatives because Obama.

Noah != conservative

Conservative = liberal.

 

[Moonbeam]

This idealism served this country well for ~230 years. Now this common sense has opened up the the executive branch to be judge and executioner. It isn't a matter of when, it is a matter of who will decide to utilize this legal framework to kill citizens without trial.

That will be up to how many of our citizens declare war on us and attempt to hide in war zones overseas. They will make the decision.

Thanks for clarifying that you will continue to believe your point is valid even though the evidence you brought to support your point was just shown to be mostly invalid and even if it were valid would not even be in the same league as what the GOP is doing now.

Nice crocodile tears. Like you really give a shit about Al Awlaki. If a GOP President had got him you'd be defending it against any liberal/libertarian bullshit like what you just posted.

Damn, dank, everything about Genx screams unbiased true believer to me. I don't believe for a second he applies his principles selectively. Everything about the positions he takes imply to me at least that they come from a principled moral foundation. I really don't like it when what I see as morally held values that I believe are morally invalid are written off as evil intent. It makes me question your intent. Why are you unfair like this? Can't you just express what you see in error in his opinions without implying he doesn't believe in them except when they apply to somebody else. Hasn't he even been critical in this thread of both conservatives and liberals?

The ideals he worships and says have served us for 230 years have served us only in the ideal. They have never been applied in reality. And we have never faced the kind of terrorism we do today where our citizens are radicalized, declare war against us and hide where they can only be gotten to by extrajudicial means. No President, I would leave Trump out as unworthy of that name, would ever send or risk innocent lives in the face of a known evil threat based solely on citizenship. It is practical people who vote and make known there expectations and only a few idealists would ever expect a President to risk their lives over idealistic principles. The mistake Genx makes, in my opinion, is that his fear of the abuse of power and his respect for the laws that prevent it can lead to that idealism being used against itself. Opposing evils require a balancing act which I believe Obama properly managed on this issue.

 

[dank69]

That will be up to how many of our citizens declare war on us and attempt to hide in war zones overseas. They will make the decision.

Damn, dank, everything about Genx screams unbiased true believer to me. I don't believe for a second he applies his principles selectively. Everything about the positions he takes imply to me at least that they come from a principled moral foundation. I really don't like it when what I see as morally held values that I believe are morally invalid are written off as evil intent. It makes me question your intent. Why are you unfair like this? Can't you just express what you see in error in his opinions without implying he doesn't believe in them except when they apply to somebody else. Hasn't he even been critical in this thread of both conservatives and liberals?

The ideals he worships and says have served us for 230 years have served us only in the ideal. They have never been applied in reality. And we have never faced the kind of terrorism we do today where our citizens are radicalized, declare war against us and hide where they can only be gotten to by extrajudicial means. No President, I would leave Trump out as unworthy of that name, would ever send or risk innocent lives in the face of a known evil threat based solely on citizenship. It is practical people who vote and make known there expectations and only a few idealists would ever expect a President to risk their lives over idealistic principles. The mistake Genx makes, in my opinion, is that his fear of the abuse of power and his respect for the laws that prevent it can lead to that idealism being used against itself. Opposing evils require a balancing act which I believe Obama properly managed on this issue.

You can believe he cares about Al Awlaki if you want. I don't buy it for a second.

You can also believe that what I see in him is what I really see in me, and you'd be right. I don't give a shit about Al Awlaki either, and wouldn't care if he was killed by GW instead of Obama. You don't get to renounce your citizenship and join a terrorist group dedicated to harming the remaining citizens and then expect to still be protected by the rights conferred by the citizenship you renounced. Bull-fucking-shit and anyone arguing otherwise is just as full of shit. There is no slippery slope here. This doesn't lead to a President being judge and executioner against any citizen he doesn't like, unless he can somehow get that citizen to renounce his citizenship and declare war on the US.

Hell I bet if you asked Al Awlaki if he wanted citizenship protection he would not.

So you see, dear Moonie, we are left with the choices of Genx being stupid or being dishonest. There aren't many people here I would classify as stupid.

 

[Noah Abrams]

You can believe he cares about Al Awlaki if you want. I don't buy it for a second.

You can also believe that what I see in him is what I really see in me, and you'd be right. I don't give a shit about Al Awlaki either, and wouldn't care if he was killed by GW instead of Obama. You don't get to renounce your citizenship and join a terrorist group dedicated to harming the remaining citizens and then expect to still be protected by the rights conferred by the citizenship you renounced. Bull-fucking-shit and anyone arguing otherwise is just as full of shit. There is no slippery slope here. This doesn't lead to a President being judge and executioner against any citizen he doesn't like, unless he can somehow get that citizen to renounce his citizenship and declare war on the US.

All the things you have said about the said person, have they been proved in a court of law? Or statements from the authorities and media counts as guilt in the constitution? If you or anybody else cannot see a very dangerous slippery slope then they are blissfully unaware...matter of fact the first step of the slippery slope has already happened with the assassination.

I would also say it would not have happened if this was a "real" US citizen, that is, a proper white person. Not a Mozlem. Case in point is the restraint shown by the govt when the right wing extremists took over that federal property. It doesn't take imagination to see what would have happened if they were blacks or those devil worshiping mozlems

 

[dank69]

All the things you have said about the said person, have they been proved in a court of law? Or statements from the authorities and media counts as guilt in the constitution? If you or anybody else cannot see a very dangerous slippery slope then they are blissfully unaware...matter of fact the first step of the slippery slope has already happened with the assassination.

The fuck are you talking about? He posted videos of himself saying these things all over the internet. What is your theory here? That the US government manufactured those videos and it wasn't really him?

 

[Noah Abrams]

The fuck are you talking about? He posted videos of himself saying these things all over the internet. What is your theory here? That the US government manufactured those videos and it wasn't really him?

Ok..so, what crime did he get convicted of?

 

[dank69]

Ok..so, what crime did he get convicted of?

I don't know, what crime was Bin Laden convicted of?

 

[Genx87]

That will be up to how many of our citizens declare war on us and attempt to hide in war zones overseas. They will make the decision.

Damn, dank, everything about Genx screams unbiased true believer to me. I don't believe for a second he applies his principles selectively. Everything about the positions he takes imply to me at least that they come from a principled moral foundation. I really don't like it when what I see as morally held values that I believe are morally invalid are written off as evil intent. It makes me question your intent. Why are you unfair like this? Can't you just express what you see in error in his opinions without implying he doesn't believe in them except when they apply to somebody else. Hasn't he even been critical in this thread of both conservatives and liberals?

The ideals he worships and says have served us for 230 years have served us only in the ideal. They have never been applied in reality. And we have never faced the kind of terrorism we do today where our citizens are radicalized, declare war against us and hide where they can only be gotten to by extrajudicial means. No President, I would leave Trump out as unworthy of that name, would ever send or risk innocent lives in the face of a known evil threat based solely on citizenship. It is practical people who vote and make known there expectations and only a few idealists would ever expect a President to risk their lives over idealistic principles. The mistake Genx makes, in my opinion, is that his fear of the abuse of power and his respect for the laws that prevent it can lead to that idealism being used against itself. Opposing evils require a balancing act which I believe Obama properly managed on this issue.

Somebody like danke69 goalposts shift based on who is in power. It is why he defends Obama on this issue by attacking people who point out the legal framework created under his administration will be used by future presidents who deem somebody an enemy of the state to avoid a trial and thus become lawless. While I have and will attack Bush for his illegal war in Iraq and creating legal framework for torture among other things. And will attack Trump for his horrible dumpster fire of an administration.

I can and do respect you and eskimospy for attempting engage in debate in this zoo of a forum.

That said, we have had more risk to our country than we do right now. And US citizens left our country to fight for our enemies. Those that were not killed on an actual battlefield, not sipping tea at a cafe, were put on trial. So I do think that system has served us well. And this gold road we have paved since 9-11 will rear its ugly head on us at some point in the future.

 

[Genx87]

I don't know, what crime was Bin Laden convicted of?

We wasn't convicted, he was indicted. We were there to capture in order to put him on trial.

 

[dank69]

We wasn't convicted, he was indicted. We were there to capture in order to put him on trial.

That's right, neither was convicted. Both were executed.

 

[dank69]

Somebody like danke69 goalposts shift based on who is in power. It is why he defends Obama on this issue by attacking people who point out the legal framework created under his administration will be used by future presidents who deem somebody an enemy of the state to avoid a trial and thus become lawless. While I have and will attack Bush for his illegal war in Iraq and creating legal framework for torture among other things. And will attack Trump for his horrible dumpster fire of an administration.

I can and do respect you and eskimospy for attempting engage in debate in this zoo of a forum.

That said, we have had more risk to our country than we do right now. And US citizens left our country to fight for our enemies. Those that were not killed on an actual battlefield, not sipping tea at a cafe, were put on trial. So I do think that system has served us well. And this gold road we have paved since 9-11 will rear its ugly head on us at some point in the future.

Please explain how a future President can exploit this legal framework.

 

[Noah Abrams]

We wasn't convicted, he was indicted. We were there to capture in order to put him on trial.

Yes except there wasn't any real attempt made to capture him. With all the firepower and nothing much in the way of resistance, should have been easy enough to capture. But a trial would have resulted in lots of very embarrassing information. A lot of stuff on how we ourselves have been in the bed with the same kind of terrorists, happily aiding in the killing of innocent civilians, when they were "our" guys fighting the reds. But then they later became terrorists...

It would all be laughable if the costs of all those strategic games weren't paid by innocent children....

Maybe the Buddhists are right, there is no good or evil.

 

[Genx87]

That's right, neither was convicted. Both were executed.

Bin Laden wasn't executed, he was killed in a firefight while trying to capture him for trial.

 

[Noah Abrams]

I can and do respect you and eskimospy for attempting engage in debate in this zoo of a forum.

There is so much order, discipline, mutual respect (and dare I say intelligence?) in a zoo.

Please...don't bring zoo here...

 

[dank69]

Bin Laden wasn't executed, he was killed in a firefight while trying to capture him for trial.

Haha, a firefight. Sure thing buddy. I totally believe you think we should have sent in a team and risked losing another helicopter or worse for Al Awlaki.

 

[Genx87]

Yes except there wasn't any real attempt made to capture him. With all the firepower and nothing much in the way of resistance, should have been easy enough to capture. But a trial would have resulted in lots of very embarrassing information. A lot of stuff on how we ourselves have been in the bed with the same kind of terrorists, happily aiding in the killing of innocent civilians, when they were "our" guys fighting the reds. But then they later became terrorists...

It would all be laughable if the costs of all those strategic games weren't paid by innocent children....

Maybe the Buddhists are right, there is no good or evil.

I think there was certainly an attempt. If the goal was to execute him. We would not send in a seal team and risk their lives. We have other tools at our disposal to level the compound and verify his death.

Of course our foreign policy has been horrible and cost millions of lives.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes except there wasn't any real attempt made to capture him. With all the firepower and nothing much in the way of resistance, should have been easy enough to capture. But a trial would have resulted in lots of very embarrassing information. A lot of stuff on how we ourselves have been in the bed with the same kind of terrorists, happily aiding in the killing of innocent civilians, when they were "our" guys fighting the reds. But then they later became terrorists...

It would all be laughable if the costs of all those strategic games weren't paid by innocent children....

Maybe the Buddhists are right, there is no good or evil.

The decision to capture him or not would have had exactly zero to do with what embarrassing details might come out in a trial. First, the US has proven itself perfectly willing to just toss people in Guantanamo forever. Second, the US can and has already prosecuted people such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and done so in a classified way where the government could easily ensure that 'very embarrassing information' never got out.

I mean come on, this is embarrassingly naive of you.

 

[fskimospy]

I think there was certainly an attempt. If the goal was to execute him. We would not send in a seal team and risk their lives. We have other tools at our disposal to level the compound and verify his death.

Of course our foreign policy has been horrible and cost millions of lives.

If memory serves the reason for the raid was specifically that we would have had difficulty verifying his death otherwise. While I agree that the argument that we didn't want to capture him because he might embarrass us at trial is stupid I think we didn't make a big effort to capture him due to the logistical difficulty of it and due to the fact that he had little to no operational knowledge of what Al-Qaeda was doing at that point.

 

[dank69]

The decision to capture him or not would have had exactly zero to do with what embarrassing details might come out in a trial. First, the US has proven itself perfectly willing to just toss people in Guantanamo forever. Second, the US can and has already prosecuted people such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and done so in a classified way where the government could easily ensure that 'very embarrassing information' never got out.

I mean come on, this is embarrassingly naive of you.

Noah naive? The guy who has more real world experience than any of us? Unpossible!

 

[Jhhnn]

A U.S. citizen does not lose his constitutionally protected rights if they are outside the United States. It does not give the govt any right to assassinate them. Both the right and left (again, two sides of the same coin) have been trampling over the rights of people in the name of war on terror, we know that. And this fearful populace - terrified of even an unknown car on the street - is all too willing.

Bullshit. Dual citizenship Americans who fought for the Axis received no greater consideration than their comrades in arms. Neither did renegades who rode with the Comanches.