It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul & Civil Liberties Groups Decry Killing Of American Militant Without Trial (Video)

page: 4
60
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by joshter
 


The FBI seems to disagree




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brotherman
OldCorps


Does anyone know anything about the other American killed in the drone strike Samir Kahn apparently he wrote a web magazine called inspire? I guess TPTB saw an opportunity for a 2for. I read about him in an article published in the lebanon daily news on Oct 1st


I think I mentioned him a few times him earlier; but I chose to focus on al-Awalki because he is the one Obama put the contract out on.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


You did mention him in the OP why I find it important is that somehow he is painted to be just as bad and through the media source I read through almost any kinds of unimportant but none the less he is a citizen too, that makes 2 Americans murdered I thought this thread was about the dealings of an american citizen without proper trial this particular assassination deals with 2 Americans that were destroyed without due process in the same incident maybe one was on the CIA whack a mole list but what about the other? Makes me curious about the other ones involved that remain nameless



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by joshter

LOL You're ridiculous. YOU have zero credibility. What kind of law says that Osama is innocent? Why do you disagree with any of the evidence that the government has on the guy?



Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter at all.

It's not a matter for legal proceedings.

Bin Laden was neither a US Citizen nor inside US borders. US law can't be applied to that situation by ANY yardstick. We can't just arbitrarily start extending US jurisdiction to the entire planet, although, apparently, there are imperialists around who think we can.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by OldCorp
 


You did mention him in the OP why I find it important is that somehow he is painted to be just as bad and through the media source I read through almost any kinds of unimportant but none the less he is a citizen too, that makes 2 Americans murdered I thought this thread was about the dealings of an american citizen without proper trial this particular assassination deals with 2 Americans that were destroyed without due process in the same incident maybe one was on the CIA whack a mole list but what about the other? Makes me curious about the other ones involved that remain nameless


Khan was a legitimate journalist/editor. Just because he published garbage I wouldn't line my birdcage with doesn't make him any less of a professional. He could very easily have been in al-Awalki's company in pursuit of a story; their ideology was certainly compatible. It's pretty obvious that the e-zine he published was a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda, and I have no doubt that al-Awalki was in fact an up and comer in the organization.

Khan knew the risks of being with a man the US government had targeted for assassination and he paid the price that many journalists do when they are in a war zone: he got whacked. The "reporters" that were killed in the Iraqi helicopter attack are another good example of being in the right place at the wrong time. They were in the company of men carrying machine guns and RPGs, a legitimate target, and they paid for that decision with their lives. His death was the result of his choice to be where he was, and not the direct result of any government policy or executive order.

I'd also like to know who else was killed. The list could be very informative.


edit on 10/2/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by joshter

LOL You're ridiculous. YOU have zero credibility. What kind of law says that Osama is innocent? Why do you disagree with any of the evidence that the government has on the guy?



Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter at all.

It's not a matter for legal proceedings.

Bin Laden was neither a US Citizen nor inside US borders. US law can't be applied to that situation by ANY yardstick. We can't just arbitrarily start extending US jurisdiction to the entire planet, although, apparently, there are imperialists around who think we can.



It sounds to me like you're saying the U.S. "can't" or shouldn't apply American civil and criminal justice, due process, and procedural rights outside U.S. borders, no?

But it's OK with you that the U.S. applies the force of its military power and kills whomever it wills anywhere in the world it wishes.

Am I reading you correctly?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Please google: blowback, there is only one blowback that has to do with this, don't bother being smart with your 6million hits for blowback, puhlease.

You claim to be this macho American that does not accept any form of attack and will 'spill blood' to see it through but your own constitution is being raped in front of your eyes but you can't see it. That is a war and terror on your rights but you outright refuse to accept it.

I asked who is the president to use his signature to assassinate an American and you merely just explained what the CIC is. Am I just wasting my time with you here?

You call the dead man a terrorist, I call you a terrorist for ignoring the blatant rape of our constitution, you think you're doing the right thing, do you deserve a hearing when I accuse you? or is it ok for me to call for your theoretical assassination without due process and your rights to a fair trial? Its the same principles, it really is, if you are logical and not emotional about it.

End of the day, you think you're American because you think the president should be able to kill any American that he deems is a terrorist or a threat to national security and I think you're unAmerican for that very reason.

And yes, this is exactly the same arguments that are thrown around when the Patriot Act was the main subject on ATS, across the internet and the entire nation. Patriot Act > Freedoms or Patriot Act > Terrorism.
edit on 3-10-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Dude became a threat the second he swore his allegiance to the enemy. American or not you get dealt with the same way dude got his. We get a little touchy feelly and emotional when it comes to allegiance. Swear it to the USA above all others and you're good, wish for her destruction and watch what happens.

He declared himself an enemy of America and swore on it's destruction. Does this not matter? Does the fact he was involved in terror attacks not mean a thing. His actions led to the death of our servicemen directly.

How's that for nearly $10 Million in saved money for food, housing, healthcare, electricity for what would've been the rest of his life?
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by joshter

LOL You're ridiculous. YOU have zero credibility. What kind of law says that Osama is innocent? Why do you disagree with any of the evidence that the government has on the guy?



Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter at all.

It's not a matter for legal proceedings.

Bin Laden was neither a US Citizen nor inside US borders. US law can't be applied to that situation by ANY yardstick. We can't just arbitrarily start extending US jurisdiction to the entire planet, although, apparently, there are imperialists around who think we can.



It sounds to me like you're saying the U.S. "can't" or shouldn't apply American civil and criminal justice, due process, and procedural rights outside U.S. borders, no?

But it's OK with you that the U.S. applies the force of its military power and kills whomever it wills anywhere in the world it wishes.

Am I reading you correctly?


ya. what will you do about it?

it was not a criminal or civil matter. lol!!

hey, why don't you get on the radar and see what happens?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Dude became a threat the second he swore his allegiance to the enemy. American or not you get dealt with the same way dude got his. We get a little touchy feelly and emotional when it comes to allegiance. Swear it to the USA above all others and you're good, wish for her destruction and watch what happens.

He declared himself an enemy of America and swore on it's destruction. Does this not matter? Does the fact he was involved in terror attacks not mean a thing. His actions led to the death of our servicemen directly.

How's that for nearly $10 Million in saved money for food, housing, healthcare, electricity for what would've been the rest of his life?
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


..lol..

I don't swear allegiance (say words with hand in air) to anyone's colored cloth on a stick...

Made that mistake once and liars sent me into harms way.

btw.. everything you wrote "assumes facts not in evidence".. erased from the record with a "sustained" "objection"

Hitler saved a lot of money summarily killing people the party wanted dead.. he too knew they were deserving, which is all 1930s Germans needed to hear.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
We're Americans G DAMN IT! We are BETTER than that! (At least we used to be.)

edit on 10/1/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)


Question. Would this killing bother you if the dead men were not American citizens?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


problem with that was they were not military or even branded as terrorists.

am i wrong?


they were criminal and here in the us when committing the crimes.

caught and tried coz they were american dirtbags.

alwaki was in touch with 2 of the high jackers, ft. hood shooter, underwear bomber and

got grants for collage for being yemeni but was born in los cruses, NM, played the system, was devious in everything he did. ya, long list of stuff.

kahn was a chump and got what he deserved.


ron paul can't see that? paul is out, in my book.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

It sounds to me like you're saying the U.S. "can't" or shouldn't apply American civil and criminal justice, due process, and procedural rights outside U.S. borders, no?


Absolutely it should not. That's no different than having Russia, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe decide to enforce THEIR domestic laws in the US. How long do you think that would fly? Can you think of any compelling reason US law should be imposed in foreign nations, which, after all, already have their own laws?



But it's OK with you that the U.S. applies the force of its military power and kills whomever it wills anywhere in the world it wishes.


OK? That's nor even sane, the way you have written it. Kill "whomever it wills"? Not just no but HELL no. The only legitimate reason for governmental killing inside the US is legal executions, and the only legitimate reason for governmental killing OUTSIDE the US involves a state of war.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


This would only apply if the person in q committed a major crime there and fled here to avoid capture, in cases like this we arrest them here and extradite them to the nation where they are wanted. This is apart of our international law enforcement objectives here. We'd expect them to arrest our suspects there and extradite them here.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Please google: blowback, there is only one blowback that has to do with this, don't bother being smart with your 6million hits for blowback, puhlease.


No link, no discussion. I'm not a goddamned mind reader.



You claim to be this macho American


Macho? no, I'm not macho, I'm a wimp. You don't want to run into the macho guys.



that does not accept any form of attack and will 'spill blood' to see it through


Say what? Where did I say any of that? You're partially right, though - I'm not just going to sit there and "accept any form of attack". I'm just not sure what you're driving at there - is there some particular reason I should just roll over and accept an attack?



but your own constitution is being raped in front of your eyes but you can't see it. That is a war and terror on your rights but you outright refuse to accept it.


Who says I can't see it? I'm real clear on where the constitution is being violated, and this situation under discussion ain't it.



I asked who is the president to use his signature to assassinate an American and you merely just explained what the CIC is. Am I just wasting my time with you here?


If you don't understand how CiC relates to the presidency, then you probably ARE wasting your time - and mine.



You call the dead man a terrorist, I call you a terrorist for ignoring the blatant rape of our constitution, you think you're doing the right thing, do you deserve a hearing when I accuse you?


Not if you're an entity capable of declaring war. As a matter of fact, I will not accept a legal hearing from you. You do not have jurisdiction. You're better off going ahead and declaring war on me.



or is it ok for me to call for your theoretical assassination without due process and your rights to a fair trial?

Its the same principles, it really is, if you are logical and not emotional about it.


Sure. that's fine. You won't be the first, and may not be the last. Again, you can not give me any DUE process. You do not have jurisdiction. Unless you are a government entity whom I have declared war upon, your only choice is to hire a hit from the mob. Go for it.

You just aren't real clear on the subtle differences between a battlefield and a court room, are you? Study up on that, and you'll find that I'M not the one letting his emotions get in the way of his thought process here.



End of the day, you think you're American because you think the president should be able to kill any American that he deems is a terrorist or a threat to national security and I think you're unAmerican for that very reason.


No, I think I'm American by virtue of being born here, with family going back thousands of years on this same patch of ground. Whomever the president kills or doesn't kill has no bearing on that.

Nor have I said anywhere that the president should be able to kill anyone he deems a terrorist or threat to national security. What I HAVE said is that when there is a state of war, one kills the enemy. Lawyers and judges are only good for sorting out the after-action reports. In those cases, AMERICAN law STILL doesn't apply, unless such war is entirely prosecuted within the boundaries of the US - i.e. a civil war. Otherwise, the Geneva Conventions apply, and the ICC.



And yes, this is exactly the same arguments that are thrown around when the Patriot Act was the main subject on ATS, across the internet and the entire nation. Patriot Act > Freedoms or Patriot Act > Terrorism.


The Patriot Act is neither "freedom" nor "terrorism". It's a legal construct, which flaunts the alleged authority of the Constitution if applied within US borders, and is flat out irrelevant if applied outside US borders - the reason being, it is a US law, and therefore cannot apply within other nations. That alone makes it irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by nenothtu
 


This would only apply if the person in q committed a major crime there and fled here to avoid capture, in cases like this we arrest them here and extradite them to the nation where they are wanted. This is apart of our international law enforcement objectives here. We'd expect them to arrest our suspects there and extradite them here.


That's right. the operative word there is "crime". Courts are for criminal matters, not the waging of war. Extradition, even in real criminal matters, is hit and miss. Try to get someone extradited back to the US from Canada in a potentially capital case, for example.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Freedom Watch with Judge Napalitano will be VERY interesting tonight folks!


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by OldCorp
We're Americans G DAMN IT! We are BETTER than that! (At least we used to be.)

edit on 10/1/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)


Question. Would this killing bother you if the dead men were not American citizens?


I would have like to have seen bin-Laden tried instead of executed for no apparent reason. Then, after he was found guilty - IF he was found guilty - I would have pulled trapdoor myself.

I hope that answers your question.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join