Originally posted by poet1b
Yeah, our bill of rights amendments have been completely trampled by republican admins, first during the drug wars conducted on U.S. citizens, search
and seizure without a warrant, confiscation of property without a trial.
The most influential supporter of the drug war I know of in existence at the moment is Democrat Barack Obama. You are so wrong to peg the Republicans
on that when its very obvious the two-party monstrosity is responsible. Ron Paul has said in an interview he will pardon people who have been
convicted of marijuana possession. Ron Paul is a Republican. Cite me a source where a Democrat who has ever run for president in the past 25 years has
Corporations have been allowed to run roughshod over our rights, and republican admins have cheered them on.
Democrats are the ones cheering on corporate regulations. Corporations submit the regulation legislation to the Democrats that benefit them, and then
the Democrats pass it for them. I don't see Democrats asking for an end to the Federal Reserve, which is very obviously the most dirty private
corporation in existence. The Democrats are best friends of the biggest and most polluting corporation in the history of the planet Earth: The United
States of America federal government. Democrat Obama could reduce pollution in such an organisation, but chooses to pollute so he can continue the
pattern of endless war. I bring that up because the US military is the most polluting organisation within the US government, and that is something
Obama can change upon command as authorised by the US constitution. We all have seen the sci-fi movies where a corporation takes over. Well, that is
now on the verge of happening and the Democrats are an equal part of the two-party monstrosity making it happen.
The USA was designed on paper to be points of agreement between all 50 states. The USA now works in practice as the pointing of a gun at all 50
states. The only freedom we have left is the right to complain about it on the internet without getting punished. That right is on the verge of being
destroyed. We can't even complain about it on the streets in the USA without get punished such as getting peppersprayed or even much worse in a few
Then we had the Patriot Act created by a repub admin because of its incompetence in protecting our nation.
Democrat Barack Obama voted YES for the patriot act. Democrat Barack Obama *did not* veto its extension when he got into office. In 2001, the
Democrat-controlled senate voted yes to pass the patriot act and therefore destroy the US constitution. The Republicans and Democrats are the reason
the Patriot Act started, and the Republicans and Democrats are the reason the Patriot Act is still here. Tell me that you can't see that!?
But as far as RPs claim that Anwar al-Awlaki recently killed in a war zone openly fighting against U.S. troops should have gotten a trial is
ridiculous. RP dishonors the U.S. soldiers killed in war. He wants to tie their hands behind their back, and then send them into a war zone. Pure
RP really wants us to conduct a trial before we kill an enemy on the field of battle?
And you people think this is proper thinking?
It is common knowledge that no USA war zone exists until it has been declared to exist by the USA congress. Was Yemen declared to be a war
zone by the USA congress? If not, then your very obviously wrong. But there is more. Even if you actually have a war zone, the troops have to have
good reason to believe that any target is aiding the enemy before elimination. What was the good reason provided that al-Awlaki was providing aid
beyond internet messages saying "hey, good job al-quaida!"? If you cannot show a good reason, then you have failed on not one count but two counts.
I'll assume you read the ATS thread on the obviously wrongful and obviously illegal killing of al-Awlaki. However, the alternative legal method
presented by the OP was not even the only choice. Congress could have been asked to declare war on al-Awlaki thereby giving them the military
authority to act on a declared war.
But wait, there's more. Its immoral to assassinate someone without giving them an opportunity to surrender for capture when an obvious chance presents
itself. They could have sent in helicopters with troops rather than sending a drone, and they chose not to do that. Obama acted as an immoral illegal
vigilante with disregard for his job position on three different counts, two of which are very obvious to a degree where I question whether you're
being honest with your self.
edit on 2-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)