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

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OldCorp
I'd put a company of Marines against the entire Yemeni army any day of the week, and be home in time to watch the evening news.

That's what they thought about Afghanistan, I'm sure.

A mission to capture al-Awlaki could have resulted in casualties, that is true; but the oath we take is to defend the CONSTITUTION. Seeing as how this order to kill al-Awlaki raped that Constitution, I don't think any Marine or SEAL would have a problem giving his life to see that it is properly upheld.

I don't have the honor of currently knowing any Marines or SEALs in person, so can't comment. What's more important, I don't see the assassination of al-Awlaki as any sort of "rape" of Constitution, phew, what a word. The guy has enlisted with the enemy. If he was attacking a position held by US Marines and was struck by a 30mm round from a gunship, the reason and the result of such event would have been the same. The fact that he was not a foot soldier is quite irrelevant.

You can dig up any number of videos on YouTube about that bank hold-up (in Colorado, I believe) where the criminals were eventually gunned down by the police. And these were US citizens to be sure. Of course, with lots more effort and risk for LEA, they could have being incapacitated, or let to escape and then re-captured and what not, just in order for them to have due process instead of a new hole in the cranium. Do you believe that would have been a better course of action?

He was posing NO intimidate threat...they were watching him for 8 weeks then decided, "screw it just blow him up". And that is unconstitutional. What makes our government any different than AQ in that respect?

So now they do it in the open!
you all seem to be bother about americans.
and dont care about others?
other countries should be against this to.
it could be seen as a act of war.
but the US would just pay them off. againe.

Originally posted by goldcoin
He was posing NO intimidate threat...they were watching him for 8 weeks then decided, "screw it just blow him up". And that is unconstitutional. What makes our government any different than AQ in that respect?

The US government does not plan to fly a jumbo jet into Bourj Khalifa in Dubai, for reasons that the tower is populated by evil Muslims etc. It does not bomb mass transit in population centers in the Muslim world because there are lots of "infidels" there. What it does is to target operatives who organize and help carry out terror acts against Americans.

That they watched him for 8 weeks does not surprise me a bit, better be sure this is the guy and how he travels before deciding to attack, I thought that was clear.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goldcoin
He was posing NO intimidate threat...they were watching him for 8 weeks then decided, "screw it just blow him up". And that is unconstitutional. What makes our government any different than AQ in that respect?

The US government does not plan to fly a jumbo jet into Bourj Khalifa in Dubai, for reasons that the tower is populated by evil Muslims etc. It does not bomb mass transit in population centers in the Muslim world because there are lots of "infidels" there. What it does is to target operatives who organize and help carry out terror acts against Americans.

That they watched him for 8 weeks does not surprise me a bit, better be sure this is the guy and how he travels before deciding to attack, I thought that was clear.

I'm sorry but that is just naive.

What threat did Libya pose to Americans? What threat did Iraq pose to Americans?
We don't fly airplanes into buildings because we have much more powerful weapons, and we use them quite often.

Originally posted by goldcoin
What threat did Libya pose to Americans? What threat did Iraq pose to Americans?

I've always been opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It never made sense. With Libya, the US was not the sole actor, Europe was deeply involved, and frankly I don't know why anti-Gaddhafi forces finally received support from the West. Maybe because he was a SOB. And as far as I know, Libya is not occupied by the US by any measure.

We don't fly airplanes into buildings because we have much more powerful weapons, and we use them quite often.

We don't use them against population centers. There collateral damage and that's bad, to be sure.

No matter how you slice it, there are groups of people who are planning and carrying out very real acts of terror against the US, against Muslim population and whoever else. If you suggest to sit down and twiddle fingers, in the hope that these people will get "due process", I personally find that laughable.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OldCorp
I'd put a company of Marines against the entire Yemeni army any day of the week, and be home in time to watch the evening news.

That's what they thought about Afghanistan, I'm sure.

I was being a bit facetious, but the point I should have made is that with all of the technology at our disposal, US forces have a tremendous advantage over any OPFOR in the world. It's almost so unfair as to be immoral.

I don't have the honor of currently knowing any Marines or SEALs in person, so can't comment. What's more important, I don't see the assassination of al-Awlaki as any sort of "rape" of Constitution, phew, what a word. The guy has enlisted with the enemy. If he was attacking a position held by US Marines and was struck by a 30mm round from a gunship, the reason and the result of such event would have been the same. The fact that he was not a foot soldier is quite irrelevant.

Fortunately I do have that honor, and we are all of like mind; Our oath is to the Constitution. Period. Not to any temporary occupant of the White House.

If al-Awlaki had been attacking a position and had been killed as a result I would have zero problem with that. Once you physically take up arms against the United States then you are indeed a traitor and deserve a traitor's death. I don't feel the fact that he wasn't a foot soldier is irrelevant at all. The government has maintained that he was a "spiritual adviser" to the Ft. Hood shooter and the Underwear Bomber. Al-Awlaki admitted as much in his videos; but it has never been proven, or even alleged, that he was an active participant in the planning of those attacks.

From what I've seen and read over the past 6 months of researching this story, one crime that al-Awlaki could have been charged with is "Providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations," a crime for which there is a maximum penalty of not more than 15 years in prison, or life if a death results from those actions.

U.S. CODE TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2339B
§ 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.

(a) Prohibited Activities.
(1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989) Source

This, of course, is only the first step in the legal process. The next charge, which I believe he would have been found guilty of, is Treason; the ONLY crime that is defined in the Constitution.

U.S., CODE TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

§ 2381. Treason - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Source

BUT, in order to be convicted of Treason, the law requires:

U.S. Constitution Article III Section 3 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Since there was never ANY sort of trial, the requirements to support a charge of Treason have not been met; ergo, the death penalty in this case was premature and unconstitutional.

Continued in next post...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OldCorp

You can dig up any number of videos on YouTube about that bank hold-up (in Colorado, I believe) where the criminals were eventually gunned down by the police. And these were US citizens to be sure. Of course, with lots more effort and risk for LEA, they could have being incapacitated, or let to escape and then re-captured and what not, just in order for them to have due process instead of a new hole in the cranium. Do you believe that would have been a better course of action?

I think you are referring to the North Hollywood shootout.


In that case, law enforcement acted properly to defend the citizenry from an obvious threat. I don't think that al-Awlaki posed any such threat.

reply to post by OldCorp


You are a liar. If you had talked to anyone in the armed forces you would know that wartime laws are different and since Alwaki was an enemy operative it was a legal kill. Or do you not remember the case when the ACLU challenged Obamas "Dead or Alive" order?

I want to hear you say "I would die for Alwaki, leaving behind my family and friends"Until then, you really cannot speak if this is right or wrong.

I just wanted to bring up a fact for those of you who say this is okay simply because he was killing, or posing a threat to the US and its citizens. If this is true, why doesn't the government provide evidence? They have not provided sufficient evidence against this person, so how do we actually "know" he was posing a threat to us? I am sick of just "taking the government's word for it," and that is NOT how this country was intended to operate.

When we do get evidence, some of it is fabricated anyway. That's probably why we don't get more, because it will be torn to shreds after 1 day, and put the government on the spot. So to me, this is a symptom of a more serious disease. And it has to do with our government in general.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I just wanted to bring up a fact for those of you who say this is okay simply because he was killing, or posing a threat to the US and its citizens. If this is true, why doesn't the government provide evidence? They have not provided sufficient evidence against this person, so how do we actually "know" he was posing a threat to us? I am sick of just "taking the government's word for it," and that is NOT how this country was intended to operate.

When we do get evidence, some of it is fabricated anyway. That's probably why we don't get more, because it will be torn to shreds after 1 day, and put the government on the spot. So to me, this is a symptom of a more serious disease. And it has to do with our government in general.

You can file a Freedom of Information Act claim and see what is available to the public. A Wikipedia article could be a good start.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by OldCorp

 

You are a liar. If you had talked to anyone in the armed forces you would know that wartime laws are different and since Alwaki was an enemy operative it was a legal kill. Or do you not remember the case when the ACLU challenged Obamas "Dead or Alive" order?

I want to hear you say "I would die for Alwaki, leaving behind my family and friends"Until then, you really cannot speak if this is right or wrong.

I don't lie. And it has been my experience that when people resort to personal attacks it is because they have run out of legitimate arguments. Obviously you never bothered to watch the video, 15 minutes of which were devoted to an interview with the ACLU Senior Fellow in charge of targeted assassinations who supported everything I have said. Apparently your reading comprehension skills are also in question, because I did say I would die to defend the Constitution, part of which guarantees a trial for American citizens before punishment is meted out.

Bye bye.

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com

 

This is easy, y'all.

The under-current of the discussion is that instead of a killing war, we charge enemies with crimes.

"Send in a bunch of Marines to capture the enemy and bring him to trial!" Are you kidding me?

It is a naive belief that the world works in a way that does not require bloodshed. Most people grow out of that extreme naivete in their first fist-fight in first grade.

If a person is a member of al-Qaeda, that person IS an enemy of the United States. Whether, firing an RPG at a Blackhawk, or passing tactical plans via cell phone against Americans or allies, he is not a "criminal"-- such a person is a valid military target as an enemy of the United States of America.

* Anti-war ideals rightly despised "collateral damage" when legitimate military targets were bombed and civilians were killed; and so the US developed "smart bomb" technology.
* Anti-war ideals rightly despised sending American soldiers into harms way; and so the US developed drones.
* Combining those technology they were used against Anwar al-Awlaki, so...
* Anti-war ideals, now, despise killing an enemy of the United States because we should arrest them and charge them with a crime?

No. That is not the same as "murder." That does not give Americans cause to need to "look over our shoulders" to see if we are next.

That rhetoric probably sounds good amongst certain gatherings of like-minded person who do not, by nature, look for logic-flaws if the statement expresses an emotionally based ideal; but that does not alter the fact that the statement is ridiculously corrupted by a fantasy that no one really intends to harm anyone else (except, maybe, the United States).

You can discuss the need for "Congressional oversight" in deciding whether or not an enemy can be killed and even do so with a straight face; but the argument is still absurdly misconceived.

Thank You that was very well put.
As a conservitive I think Obama's handeling of terrorist is where I give him his highest marks. I didnt think he had
it in him. This is a preemptive world now. The oceans can no longer give us the protection they once did. With dirty bombs and anthrax and all the other agents of terror we no longer have the luxury of being reactive we must now be preemptive.
Imagine a conservitive defending Obama against the ACLU, never thought I would be doing that in a million years.
The Terrorist know no rules, sometime we have to play the same way.

reply to post by OldCorp

Apparently your reading comprehension skills are also in question, because I did say I would die to defend the Constitution, part of which guarantees a trial for American citizens before punishment is meted out.

Ha, i asked you "Would you die so Alwaki could live for trial?" You gave no answer.

Also, it was not "punishment" it was killing a man who has been orchestrating terrorist attacks for more than a decade. The attack was not about "Justice" It was about saving lives.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by OldCorp

 

Apparently your reading comprehension skills are also in question, because I did say I would die to defend the Constitution, part of which guarantees a trial for American citizens before punishment is meted out.

Ha, i asked you "Would you die so Alwaki could live for trial?" You gave no answer.

Also, it was not "punishment" it was killing a man who has been orchestrating terrorist attacks for more than a decade. The attack was not about "Justice" It was about saving lives.

edit on 2-11-2011 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry. I had no idea that I was speaking with someone who is mentally challenged. Here sweetpea, let me help you out:

Originally posted by OldCorp

Someone above asked if anyone were willing to die for al-Awlaki's right to have a trial; well they can count me in that number. I wouldn't throw my life away in the name of that scumbag, but I would sacrifice it for the Constitution. Who knows, if it happened, they might name a high school after me some day.

I'm done with you. I have better things to do than defend myself against baseless accusations from someone that can't even keep up with the thread.

reply to post by hawkiye

There is no evidence Alawaki was a threat the only evidence anyone has seen is a few video clips of him preaching anti-government rhetoric. Everything else he supposedly is is nothing more then a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations promoted by a media campaign with the assurance that a bunch of politically connected secret attorneys approved in secret.

Good point.

There may not be much hard "evidence" that Alawaki even existed in any large capacity to begin with.

For all anyone really knows, he may be some fabricated charactor designed to instill anti-American propaganda as an excuse to further an Obama agenda.

All I see are videos, blogs, emails, and M$M reports that all come from the same source.


Good OP with the ACLU/Obama connection.

reply to post by OldCorp

I'm sorry. I had no idea that I was speaking with someone who is mentally challenged. Here sweetpea, let me help you out:

Ok, you get on to me for calling you a liar and then you call me mentally challenged? Hypocrite~

I'm done with you. I have better things to do than defend myself against baseless accusations from someone that can't even keep up with the thread.

How am I not keeping up with the thread?

You people complain about an assassination of a foreign combatant, i ask "Would you be wiling to give up your life for Alawakis trial?" No one has still specifically addressed this question. All they say is "I would die for the constitution" Alwaki is not the Constitution. Differentiate.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well, then, I'm a collective of single-celled organisms.

Collective rights! Ne'er has there been such a farcical notion.

I snicker silently reading the Bill of Rights as applying only to collectives.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goldcoin
What threat did Libya pose to Americans? What threat did Iraq pose to Americans?

I've always been opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It never made sense. With Libya, the US was not the sole actor, Europe was deeply involved, and frankly I don't know why anti-Gaddhafi forces finally received support from the West. Maybe because he was a SOB. And as far as I know, Libya is not occupied by the US by any measure.

We don't fly airplanes into buildings because we have much more powerful weapons, and we use them quite often.

We don't use them against population centers. There collateral damage and that's bad, to be sure.

No matter how you slice it, there are groups of people who are planning and carrying out very real acts of terror against the US, against Muslim population and whoever else. If you suggest to sit down and twiddle fingers, in the hope that these people will get "due process", I personally find that laughable.

With respect, please look at the following information...

www.iraqbodycount.org...

over 100,000 civilians killed

here is a video that I'm sure you're familiar with, if not it may be eye opening.

www.france24.com...


The fact is that, yes we target the people who are trying to kill Americans, but the collateral damage is obscene. How many innocent lives do you think were claimed when the US was bombing the palaces and homes of Gaddafi and Saddam?

I'm not defending Al-Awlaki in any way other than he has not been extradited, or that no extradition attempt has been made after monitoring him for 8 weeks. What they did was illegal, but those sort of things hide behind "National Security". Something that we clearly don't need to know about according to out elected officials.

What's worse is the precedent that this is setting. How long until we're all monitored by drones, how long until we're not allowed to ask questions due to national security reasons.

I'm so tired of the US govt thinking excessive and constant violence does anything but cause more violence. You assassinate one religious fanatic you have disagreements with and what happens? You probably just made his son, his brother, his wife, his neighbor, a friend, his uncle, anyone close to him hate the US just as much or more than whatever guy you assassinated did. If even one of them vows vengeance, when they had no reason to before, you've essentially just brought yourself back to square one, if more than one does now you're making negative progress. It's a viscous never ending cycle.

This "war on terror" will never end as long as the US is hypocritical and thinks we are always in the right and anyone who disagrees with us, even over things like oil or politics etc, is wrong and evil and needs to be converted or slain. This Crusades mentality is just disgusting and counter productive.

America has to admit we're not perfect, we're not worthy of judging the whole world, we should focus on our own country which is in shambles for a dozen reasons that are NOT islam extremists' fault (corporate/wallstreet greed, out of control university costs, out of control govt spending and taxing, a stupid 2 party political red vs blue system, etc) and stop sticking our hands into everyone elses country.

Originally posted by darkest4
I'm so tired of the US govt thinking excessive and constant violence does anything but cause more violence. You assassinate one religious fanatic you have disagreements with and what happens? You probably just made his son, his brother, his wife, his neighbor, a friend, his uncle, anyone close to him hate the US just as much or more than whatever guy you assassinated did. If even one of them vows vengeance, when they had no reason to before, you've essentially just brought yourself back to square one, if more than one does now you're making negative progress. It's a viscous never ending cycle.

This "war on terror" will never end as long as the US is hypocritical and thinks we are always in the right and anyone who disagrees with us, even over things like oil or politics etc, is wrong and evil and needs to be converted or slain. This Crusades mentality is just disgusting and counter productive.

America has to admit we're not perfect, we're not worthy of judging the whole world, we should focus on our own country which is in shambles for a dozen reasons that are NOT islam extremists' fault (corporate/wallstreet greed, out of control university costs, out of control govt spending and taxing, a stupid 2 party political red vs blue system, etc) and stop sticking our hands into everyone elses country.

edit on 2-11-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)

Well said, bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity.