Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Howdy, XCathdra. Hope the post tornado season has been a little more kind to you and your neighbors. 
I am just going to throw out my opinion and thoughts here....
So far so good.. Slowly rebuilding.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
There are generally two schools of thought that are seen here. One is yours, and the typical conservative type viewpoint. This is that there are two
different "inalienable" rights here: those afforded to American Citizens, and then the rest....snipped for response text
While ive seen the argument before about rights and where they come from, in this particular case the argument being used revolves around citizenship
and how that affects what occured. I dont have to wait to have a person who is pointing a gun at me pull the trigger before acting. To use the flip
side argument people make about Bush, Bush never killed anyone personally, however his orders are cited to argue the war crimes charge against him.
Using their same argument, Alawaki is in the same boat.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is not clear nor present to me. Who made this decision? Did it represent a jury of peers? Any legal authority rooted in the judiciary? Or is
the military throwing its weight around, violating law by committing an assassination?
When a person looks at you and says im going to kill you, you dont have to wait for that person to pull the gun and get a round off before you can
act. The intent was established when the comment was made, and is part of US law when it comes to justifiable defense and a justified homocide.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The singular most frightening thing about todays world is the prevalence of the "two wrongs make a right" mentality. I pray, with everything in my
being, that this mentality does not become rooted in the philosophy of military action (at least, more than it already is).
We are already there and the US is heading towards the slope. However, on the other side the system they use accepts the eye for an eye mentality.
When the rules that govern us dont account for that setup, we have a problem.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This is not some silly or phoney political debate between pundits on Fox/CNN/MSNBC/ad nauseum. This is life and death.
I am fully aware of that.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Erm....what does that have to do with anything? Is this a holy war?
Because the argument people are using is that the attack on him was unconstitutional because he was a US citizen. My response was he can associate
with whomever he wants. In this case he chose a group is is actively at war with the US. Under US immigration laws, the moment he took that route, he
himself gave up his citizenship through his actions, which are spelled out and clear.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I had always understood the rules to be in line with the Magna Carta.
Being arrested in a foreign country for a crime committed in the US, and during that custody you talk to the foreign police, you cant claim that your
miranda rights were violated. If your going to plays stickball in brooiklynn, you better know the rules.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And how many innocents are killed in these operations? Our 'surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" (one wonders why there aren't any people working
on smart politicians).
No idea.. maybe they should act like cowards and hide behind civilian populations where they know full well any atack on them will result in civilian
casualties. I get what your saying, however it doesnt excuse terrorist tactics.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Regardless, when it comes to questions of rights, I think we should never err. But if we must err, lets always defend liberty before our buildings
and infrastructure. Because that is what this really is: a sacrifice of liberty and what is right in exchange for a hope of not having any more
stuff blown up in the homeland.
I agree however if a US citizen is going to cross over and take up arms against the United States, regardless if its for religious, personal,
terrorist, etc reasons, the fact remains they established their loyalty.
If we had a extradtition treaty with Yemen then I could see trying to arrest him. However, since we dont, then what? As I said earlier, just because a
person does not physically pull the trigger doesnt make that person immune from criminal prosecution.
As many many many people pointed out with calls to arrest Bush and Cheney.
Why is it ok to push action against those 2 and not alawaki?
