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.

 

When the President can kill whoever he wants

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


We are at war and you take out your declared enemy before he has a chance to kill you. Rules of engagement are different and are dictated by the situation on the ground.

So, as you put it I can go walk into a crowded theatre, kill 50 people and if I'm shot the people who shot me need to be incarcerated and would be wrong? You ever heard of "Kill 1 to save a thousand"?, this applies here.




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The clear and concise message is that this is only allowed in theatre and they are not to conduct one op like this on domestic land.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


In an effort to confer Constitution rights on a muslim engaged in violent Jihad in an effort to destroy America, you unwittingly advance their cause.

The President did not kill an American citizen.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


We are at war and you take out your declared enemy before he has a chance to kill you. Rules of engagement are different and are dictated by the situation on the ground.

So, as you put it I can go walk into a crowded theatre, kill 50 people and if I'm shot the people who shot me need to be incarcerated and would be wrong? You ever heard of "Kill 1 to save a thousand"?, this applies here.


Ok, so am I correct stating that you were never in the Military and/or Law enforcement?

You do have some truth, but lack alot.

The theater situation is an immediate threat to human life. With that, if said person was then fleeing from the massacre, with police in pursuit, and the person still had the means to hurt more people in the immediate area, then they are lawful in shooting him/her.

But, in the situation given, where Anwar Al-Awlaki was in a vehicle, not around others, and with no known immediate threat to others, this was not a protective killing. Unlawful execution comes to mind.


I really hate to be right on this. Trust me, please believe that as Anwar Al-Awlaki was a turd of the highest order.
But, it was still the right thing done the wrong way.



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

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
reply to post by macman
 


In an effort to confer Constitution rights on a muslim engaged in violent Jihad in an effort to destroy America, you unwittingly advance their cause.

The President did not kill an American citizen.


Are you serious????

Don't make me laughing emoticon you.

This comes down to the right thing done the wrong way.
He was still a US citizen. He was still protected by US laws.
Just because you state the Muslim faith does not require such a statement, does not then mean it applies to US laws. What you suggest, that Muslim law makes him a non US citizen is as Un-American as it gets.

Think about that before you reply.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Here's a video that I found on the Daily Paul. In it, there are many people discussing Obama's recent assassination of an American citizen. They talk about how it violates the 5th amendment, what implications that has, and so on.

IMO Obama should be impeached immediately for this.


"If this could become standard operating procedure, and a permanent precedent is established, let me assure you that this abuse of the law will spread." -- Ron Paul

edit on 3-10-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


I dont like Obama, heck I dont like anyone in the govenrment, but, when dude started working against america, underware bomber, and other attempts he no longer qualified as a protected american, he became a traitor of america. Traitors are shot on site. again im no pro obama person, but, dude deserved it. Im glad they got him off our list of people against america. He didnt even live in america naymore, he had no intentyions of returning to america.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
reply to post by macman
 


In an effort to confer Constitution rights on a muslim engaged in violent Jihad in an effort to destroy America, you unwittingly advance their cause.

The President did not kill an American citizen.


Are you serious????

Don't make me laughing emoticon you.

This comes down to the right thing done the wrong way.
He was still a US citizen. He was still protected by US laws.
Just because you state the Muslim faith does not require such a statement, does not then mean it applies to US laws. What you suggest, that Muslim law makes him a non US citizen is as Un-American as it gets.

Think about that before you reply.


he became a traitor and dead man when he started plotting aginst america....traitors are shot without question, he deserved this death.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by lbndhr

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Here's a video that I found on the Daily Paul. In it, there are many people discussing Obama's recent assassination of an American citizen. They talk about how it violates the 5th amendment, what implications that has, and so on.

IMO Obama should be impeached immediately for this.


"If this could become standard operating procedure, and a permanent precedent is established, let me assure you that this abuse of the law will spread." -- Ron Paul

edit on 3-10-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


I dont like Obama, heck I dont like anyone in the govenrment, but, when dude started working against america, underware bomber, and other attempts he no longer qualified as a protected american, he became a traitor of america. Traitors are shot on site. again im no pro obama person, but, dude deserved it. Im glad they got him off our list of people against america. He didnt even live in america naymore, he had no intentyions of returning to america.


If traitors were legally allowed to be shot on site, DC would be an empty place.

No, you are wrong.
Sorry.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
is this about the American citizen who was plotting to bomb America and the UK and was in the Taliban in a high authority who had dual citizenship? He deserved all he got regardless of where he came from.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lbndhr
 


you're applying emotion to your statement but a logical person would understand that one would have to be tried for high treason and if convicted, which the government shouldn't have any difficulty doing if they had the proof they said they did, he would be killed for his crimes.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
If you want Obama impeached 43 should be charged as well as it was his law. No one on the right said a thing about when 43 made it law and now there is complaints?

If McCain gave such an order it would've been praised.
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
If you want Obama impeached 43 should be charged as well as it was his law. No one on the right said a thing about when 43 made it law and now there is complaints?

If McCain gave such an order it would've been praised.
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Yes, he should.

What is your point, other then to summon the almighty ATS comment star for mentioning Bush?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


The point is the fact remains the Nation is at a declared war and Obama using his Commander In Chief Of The United States Armed Forces authourity to keep Americans and our allies safe but since Obama invoked it - it's always wrong. You cannot have this be your way by ignoring the clear and present danger dude presented.

Whatever authourity 43 had Obama now has and to black out on him for it while remaining silent when 43 did it makes the statement hypocritical.

This comes from the same group of people who trashed and demonized him for assassinating bin-Ladin.
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I for one am glad we can still show strength to our enemies

the day the wimps win out and legislate the strength away, will be the ruin of this nation

humans are naked apes, and the world is a violent and dangerous place. it is nothing like the academic and theoretical world of philosophy class

our enemies need to understand that attacking the US is folly, and to pick another target



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Here's a video that I found on the Daily Paul. In it, there are many people discussing Obama's recent assassination of an American citizen. They talk about how it violates the 5th amendment, what implications that has, and so on.


It is not an "assasination"....

Assasination is for poltical purposes, Kennedy, Lincoln etc.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a traitor who publicly declared war on the USA, was a senior member of Al Qaida, an organization with which we are at war with.

Congress gave the President the power to pursue and kill Al Qaida operatives abroad shortly after 9-11.

If we are to describe this action as an "assasination" then we may logically do so for all of soldiers who have killed enemy combatants abroad.

Former American citizens who have publicly betrayed their country, expressed their intent to engage in mass murder of Americans and joined terrorist organizations to further that agenda are not entitled to suddenly be considered "non-enemy" combatants with a newfound appreciation for thier lapsed American citizenship once the bullet leaves the barrel that is aimed their way.

Not "assasination" ...not political...enemy combatant, foriegn soil, the rest is BS.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The penalty for treason is death. Absolutely. But first you have to have that pesky trial thing. You know, that thing that the FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION deemed so important. If this guy was really a traitor, and they captured him, and CONVICTED him, he would be executed. That's just playing by the rules. If he is fighting for the other side, in a firefight, he gets shot, yeah.

This is flat out assassination. We're supposed to be the good guys. This is what the bad guys do.

It's the first step on a very slippery slope. Should be obvious, but apparently not. What about when they decide YOU are a traitor because you won't allow them to microchip you to protect you from identity theft, or whatever other nonsense they come up with? YOU will just deserve to be shot on the spot, right? No need for that pesky trial or anything. That's just obsolete.

Down here they call it plomo o plata.....lead or silver. Take the money or take the bullet. You're with us or against us. That's how gangsters operate. If you approve of a gangster government, then you should be happy. And as the extortion gets greater and greater, you should be happier and happier.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

He was still a US citizen. He was still protected by US laws.


US citizen..yes

Traitor and Enemy Combatant on foriegn soil? Yes

Protected by US laws?? WHAT???

US Laws do not apply to foriegn combatants or foriegn soil.

If they were then we should prosecute the entirety of the US Military as well.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Soo, lemme get this straight, it was ok when Bush and Co did it, but now that the Democrats have the white house, it's a no no to do exactly what the previous administration did?

I'll agree, if there was a safe way to have cuffed and stuffed the guy and bring him back to the US for trial, we should have done that. But in all reality, there really wasn't a way to do that without the strong possibility of getting our own guys hurt or killed in the process.

Again, this guy was a known traitor, he branded and advertised himself as waging jihad against the US. I personally don't see the problem in sending this dirtbag to his maker.

Maybe they should send you and the OP into the next terrorist infested hell hole to tickle the terrorist into submission with feathers so that he can have a trial. (That the right wingers won't let happen either) You know, that way you can do it right and show em all up.


It should have been charged as a war crime when bush and his proto-fascist neo-clowns did it.. same with the current dear leader..

There would be NO REASON to bring him to US for trial.. NO CHARGES WERE PENDING... duh.. get it now? This guys crime was being unpopular.. supposedly. His words were getting in the way of elitists / NWO stooge goals, allegedly. Unless vetted in court.. just an opinion. Desiring / speaking of freedom from the US elite is hardly a crime.

So politicians & media belched the "traitor" mantra.. another tune from the WMD broken record chorus .. aka propaganda. Which programmed drunk on patriotism followers into supporting politicians secretly imposing death sentences... just like 1930s Germany.

I've been deployed to a so called "terrorist hell hole".. it was full of people who suffer like you... who are now right pissed "we" are there bombing their loved ones, as you would be. Olive or white skin tone, voodoo religion, or eye color.. people universally have a problem with being bombed, killed and occupied by uninvited armed illegal aliens... I know, crazy



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


" Anwar al-Awlaki was a traitor"

He was never charged with any crime... nothing the elite claim has been proven.

In America that's, er was, called being "innocent". Yea, those wacky founding fathers and their nutty Ron Paul like pre-911 thinking.

..in 1930s Nazi Germany, suspicion was enough to be killed.. on orders from the Führer, whats the difference?.. besides lofty fake job titles, names, & justifications? none.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


"Traitor and Enemy Combatant on foriegn soil? Yes"

According to who?.. the same folks who brought us fake WMDs, imaginary Gulf of Tonkin, babies chucked from incubators, change you can believe in, mission accomplished and I did not have sex with that woman.

Stellar credibility & virtue, much more trustworthy than any fair open court for sure. Trusting the shadowy overlords to balance their checkbook and issue death sentences is, you are right.. the only reasonable & sane option... because it's work perfectly.

Questioning strangers on TV is crazy talk.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join