The Truth Is Viral - ACLU: "Obama is now Judge, Jury, and Executioner"

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It may have simply been a figure of speech...but the insinuation was that there is a parallel between actively being under attack and someone conspiring in a distant nation for an attack that requires infinitely more funding, planning, and cooperation that a lone truck full of a mortar team.

OK, scratch "being actively under attack". Consider the footage that you probably saw, from a drone. A bunch of guys seem to be planting a bomb in the middle of a remote road, at night. Nothing "active" is really taking place, the bombing attack is yet to happen. What's the course of action?

If the guy is recruiting and grooming terrorists, my first request is for proof of this before we kill him. Transparency, and all those great cornerstones of a free society.

If some of this information is public (which it seems to be), you can just try and find out. I find it puzzling that you expect a complete dossier delivered to your doorstep by Fedex.

if you are talking Al Qaeda, we will Predator strike a supposed spot, not minding that we blow up entire neighborhoods in the process.

You are exaggerating. There have been mishaps, but it appears an effort is being actively made to manage a strike so that there is less collateral.

Why are US citizens deserving of such better treatment than our counterparts in Pakistan?

Al Awlaki was a US citizen and he got the same treatment. Finally.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It may have simply been a figure of speech...but the insinuation was that there is a parallel between actively being under attack and someone conspiring in a distant nation for an attack that requires infinitely more funding, planning, and cooperation that a lone truck full of a mortar team.

OK, scratch "being actively under attack". Consider the footage that you probably saw, from a drone. A bunch of guys seem to be planting a bomb in the middle of a remote road, at night. Nothing "active" is really taking place, the bombing attack is yet to happen. What's the course of action?

If the guy is recruiting and grooming terrorists, my first request is for proof of this before we kill him. Transparency, and all those great cornerstones of a free society.

If some of this information is public (which it seems to be), you can just try and find out. I find it puzzling that you expect a complete dossier delivered to your doorstep by Fedex.

if you are talking Al Qaeda, we will Predator strike a supposed spot, not minding that we blow up entire neighborhoods in the process.

You are exaggerating. There have been mishaps, but it appears an effort is being actively made to manage a strike so that there is less collateral.

Why are US citizens deserving of such better treatment than our counterparts in Pakistan?

Al Awlaki was a US citizen and he got the same treatment. Finally.

Was Awaliki setting up a roadside bomb when he was killed? We he arming an explosive? Or is this just one of those "planners"? A "planner" may not have clean hands...but there is absolutely no impetus to kill one unless he is actively in the process of trying to kill. "Planning" is hardly an active process.

However, like I said...if he did all these wrongs, why not have due process? You seem to be trying to create a fallacy via a strawman. I do not expect any sort of dossier on him. What I DO expect is that we will allow for due process before we kill someone. The Magna Carta USED to mean something. So, your rights are more important than his? At what point do we cease to allow mob rule to steer our logic, and hold ourselves to the ethics that our Constitution demands?

The protocols put in place to reduce collateral damage is unacceptable to me. Were those same standards to be applied domestically, people would literally evacuate their bowels. The military protocols involve, effectively, swatting a fly with a hammer. I mean really...a missile strike to kill a single person?

And this is where your claim that he received treatment like you and I falls flat. Since when would you and I be targeted by a missile strike, without so much as a Grand Jury being convened?

What it seems is that you support this action, and because you support this action you are willing to rationalize a justification. As a scientist, i am sure you can see how backwards and unBaconian that is.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Was Awaliki setting up a roadside bomb when he was killed? We he arming an explosive? Or is this just one of those "planners"? A "planner" may not have clean hands...but there is absolutely no impetus to kill one unless he is actively in the process of trying to kill. "Planning" is hardly an active process.

Isoroku Yamamoto was a "planner". He also happened to be commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet of Japan during World War II. I doubt he personally slit throats of American sailors. He was just "planning", you know. Was there an "impetus" to kill that guy without due process? Apparently there was, because that's exactly what the United States did.

I do not expect any sort of dossier on him. What I DO expect is that we will allow for due process before we kill someone.

What if there is no hope to get the due process in place before the enemy contributes to another attack? In the above example, it would have been nice to capture Mr.Yamamoto and put him on trial, but was that possible?

The Magna Carta USED to mean something.

Sorry BFFT but this is demagoguery. Magna Carta regulated a lot of legal issues in the kingdom. Dealing with enemy combatants was not in it. And yes, I saw the actual Magna Carta myself. One of the last 4 original copies left.

So, your rights are more important than his?

No. If I engage into some kind of murderous activity, God forbid, I would understand that I forfeit at least some of my rights, though. And I thought that was clear...

And this is where your claim that he received treatment like you and I falls flat. Since when would you and I be targeted by a missile strike, without so much as a Grand Jury being convened?

Since now. If you join Taliban and attack US forces anywhere you are liable to get killed without any sort of Grand Jury. If you are helping the Taliban by being a "planner", it won't make a difference.

What it seems is that you support this action, and because you support this action you are willing to rationalize a justification. As a scientist, i am sure you can see how backwards and unBaconian that is.

As a scientist, I value common sense. Your mileage may vary.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Isoroku Yamamoto was a military leader in a national military unit. Awaliki was a criminal, working for a criminal organization. Like John Gotti...who got a trial instead of a missile. Trying to compare a nations military commander, in legal terms, to an outlaw leader of an outlaw gang isn't workable. A more suitable comparison would be to other outlaw groups, like the Mafia, the Cartels, or the Russian Mob. I don't see us deploying missiles on any of those.

Seeing an original Magna Carta manuscript is nice, but it doesn't seem to have imbued you with the spirit of it. "Enemy combatants" were not covered in the Magna Carta specifically because they didn't exist. They didn't exist because the term is a new use term to allow a skirting of the Magna Carta. This little dance of circular logic hurts my head, too. But it all boils down to an end around using the letter of the law in place of the spirit of the law.

If you value common sense as a scientist, then read Common Sense. Then try to fit this into Tom Paine's ideas.

Very little of what you are proposing is logical. It seems logical, until you look for the logical flaws. Poorly constructed analogies of disparate things, and personal witness of historical documents just don't seem to be convincing.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Isoroku Yamamoto was a military leader in a national military unit. Awaliki was a criminal, working for a criminal organization.

Yes, and that organization is foreign-based. Why do you want to reduce all things to what has been known 50 or 1000 years ago? Isoroku did not have an iPhone, and Awlaki probably did. Or an Android one.

Trying to compare a nations military commander, in legal terms, to an outlaw leader of an outlaw gang isn't workable.

You have a transnational paramilitary organization. No, Isoroku was not like that, but Awlaki was a foreign adversary nevertheless.

A more suitable comparison would be to other outlaw groups, like the Mafia, the Cartels, or the Russian Mob. I don't see us deploying missiles on any of those.

The Russian Mob and others are dangerous SOBs but they don't fly planes into buildings... In part because they know better.

"Enemy combatants" were not covered in the Magna Carta specifically because they didn't exist. They didn't exist because the term is a new use term to allow a skirting of the Magna Carta.

OK, call them "enemy from overseas" or any other phrase in Latin mixed with a few words of Old French, or whatever. If you really think the signing parties of Magna Carta meant for it to cover distant hostile tribes, you must be delusional. Does "Crusade" ring the bell? The Crusaders of the 9th Crusade abode by Magna Carta, and they did exactly what?

This little dance of circular logic hurts my head, too.

I'm sorry to hear that, this must be painful.

reply to post by Frira


OK, now I'm dying to know. What was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq?

reply to post by redskin


I would totally give you ten stars for that if I could.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Awalaki was not some James Bond sinister mastermind, as is being insinuated (and if he is, i would like to see judicial review to certify it). But lets say he was....


...the reason Bond was a "spook" was because never until 2001 would it be seen as "normal" to deploy a nations military in the hunt for a civilian criminal.

We are swatting flies with a hammer here.

Originally posted by OldCorp
reply to post by Frira

 

OK, now I'm dying to know. What was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq?

What did I write? Did I not state that it dangerous to presume we know-- especially if that presumption is first and foremost the product of political ideology which seeks to demonize our opponent?

I am to the left of most of my republican friends and to the right of most of my Democrat friends, but have a few ideals which enter into the extreme in each direction.

My Republican friends either accept the official story (bad intelligence concerning WMDs) or that taking down Saddam was deemed necessary to avoid another "Shah of Iran" debacle (popular uprising which could rightly claim that the US support of that man had allowed a tyrant to oppress his people).

My Democrat friends either accept to official story or that it was all about Halliburton. The Halliburton speculation is loosing support due to Obama's failure to expose that as the cause-- as many had expected he would and the "so an Imperialist US can claim the oil" speculation in the earliest days of that war was abandoned by most of them after the US did not claim the oil.

I think speculation which can survive the hindsight of actions and inactions of two Administrations (and their associated Secretaries of Defense, of State, UN Ambassadors, and so on) suggest a preemptive motive. Among scenarios I find worth considering are:
* Iraq had plans to invade some Iranian territory.
* Iran had plans to invade some Iraqi territory.
* Another state had plans to invade part of Iran or Iraq (or a neighbor of those).
* Other scenarios which take much more to explain-- but still are only speculation since I am not anymore privileged to what intelligence the US had at the time than others posting here.

In any of those, placing a formidable US military force in Iraq "upped the ante" and removing Saddam dealt the US a better hand-- or so it appears.

Good speculation may well take into account what did NOT happen that our intelligence and that of our allies expected would happen if we had not deployed into Iraq. I imagine the UK knows, and I imagine Israel knows, and I imagine a few other allies know the real reason.

No matter what, I begin with a presumption in my speculation that the strategic objective was long-term-- keeping Middle East oil flowing to US allies who, not having oil reserves comparable to the US, would experience devastating economic consequences.

PS: I never worked formally in such analysis, but stumbled into a position in which I had to discern likely motives of corporations seemingly breaking expectation or of making what appeared to be moves contrary to their own interests. I was batting pretty close to a thousand. I am not claiming that my experiences make my speculation right-- but it is my experience that my speculation tends to fit real-life motives and methods of large scale organizations. In the case of Iraq, I have far less to work with because I am not in the loop and those who are, aren't likely to share with me.

I mention this as the counter-point to much of the speculation we hear which I find easy to dismiss as unrealistic-- not how nations behave and not providing a realist impetus for the actions of the US and its allies which we have witnessed.

reply to post by Frira


OK, that makes sense. I was afraid that you were going to say our troops were there as cover for the recovery of a working Stargate located under the rubble of Babylon.

Originally posted by OldCorp
reply to post by Frira

 

OK, that makes sense. I was afraid that you were going to say our troops were there as cover for the recovery of a working Stargate located under the rubble of Babylon.

Well, everyone knows that the other working gate is found under the ice in the Antarctic!


Amanda Tapping and Claudia Black... hmmmm. They should have had an episode in which those two actress are competing for the attention of, oh, I don't know... something like a 50-ish Texan who writes theology and fiction along with the occasional socio-political commentary.

Oh my, but I have strayed off topic!

(Note to self: Idea for SG1 reunion screenplay)

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com

That closing credit music is pretty bad.... Makes me do the robot dance,....Badly.
Good show, keep it up!

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
We are swatting flies with a hammer here.

No. Occupying Iraq was unnecessary and criminal, occupying Afghanistan was indeed using a hammer on a fly, but in case of Awlaki, a fly-swatter was used.

Just watched the vid, I hope they can actually bring charges against Obama, but that is wishful thinking, isn't it? He will not be re-elected, no matter what you might think, Obama was put there by TPTB to pacify minorities and prevent any uprising They thought was upcoming, but in the real world no one cares except the ones who think they are wealthy when in fact only the 1% is wealthy. The 99% are competing with each other while the 1% look on and enjoy the show. What I am saying is the 1% decide who will be president, not your vote. the 1% decide everything. And some of the 99 have started to figure that out.

that he assasinated this 'moderate' muslim, son, and grandchild reminds me of the same thing being done to Gadafi and many others but this crosses the line killing 2(?) american citizens, as well as a few other American citizens on Obama's 'hit list'

why are they taken on without warning, whalt intel would they disclose if these assasinations are not done with such haste?

the world apparently will never know at this rate of President-ordered assasinations of US citizens being tolerated among other high treasons.



instead, POTUS seems so sure his next term is guaranteed... how is that possible? look to secret, illegal meetings with Rothschilds.