"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday.
A US citizen is ALWAYS a US Citizen whether they recognize it or not.
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.
[Cough]Bush[/Cough]
|
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.
Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
|
|
I'm sure if he just surrendered himself he wouldn't be executed on the spot. But he's kinda a dick, and him being dead or in custody is a GOOD thing.
See, what happens is this:
Scenario 1:
CIA guy:
"Al Awlaki? I'm with the CIA. You're under arrest for being a dick."
Al Awlaki:
RATATATATATATATATAT
CIA guy:
RATATATATATATATATAT
Al Awlaki:
BOOM!
CIA guy:
can I get an amber lamps?
Scenario 2:
CIA guy:
thoop!
Al Awlaki:
plop!
CIA guy:
runrunrunrunrun!
The second one, though it leads to some butthurt and "the moral courage of the noncombatant" type whining, is nonetheless at times an easier thing to pull off.
|
|
"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday.
A US citizen is ALWAYS a US Citizen whether they recognize it or not.
So you, as a U.S. citizen, should just be allowed to have access to military and intelligence secrets just because?
|
|
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
Why can't we do it some cool-ass cold-war way? Like maybe put some explosives in his cell phone or something like that.
Although a bomb from a Predator might be a much more satisfying boom...
|
|
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
Why can't we do it some cool-ass cold-war way? Like maybe put some explosives in his cell phone or something like that.
Although a bomb from a Predator might be a much more satisfying boom...
Plus, you can watch the play by play from the Predator on board camera.
|
|
Plus, you can watch the play by play from the Predator on board camera.Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
Why can't we do it some cool-ass cold-war way? Like maybe put some explosives in his cell phone or something like that.
Although a bomb from a Predator might be a much more satisfying boom...
That'd be some good TV right thur.
So you, as a U.S. citizen, should just be allowed to have access to military and intelligence secrets just because?"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday."
No.
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.
I don't see how any of this applies unless he actually surrenders. Until then he is an enemy combatant and a traitor. Once your working for the other side actively trying to commit terrorist actions against the US all bets are off.
If there is no legalese that says the American Government does not have the right to protect the American People from other Americans then they ought to go ahead and fill that gap in.
|
|
No.So you, as a U.S. citizen, should just be allowed to have access to military and intelligence secrets just because?"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday."
I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make then. Please expand on it, because, as written, you are suggesting that, since al-Awlaki is a citizen, the government should be forced to disclose documents for this lawsuit.
I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make then. Please expand on it, because, as written, you are suggesting that, since al-Awlaki is a citizen, the government should be forced to disclose documents for this lawsuit.No.So you, as a U.S. citizen, should just be allowed to have access to military and intelligence secrets just because?"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday."
the quote from the initial Link is the exact opposite of which you seem to think it is.
|
|
the quote from the initial Link is the exact opposite of which you seem to think it is.I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make then. Please expand on it, because, as written, you are suggesting that, since al-Awlaki is a citizen, the government should be forced to disclose documents for this lawsuit.No.So you, as a U.S. citizen, should just be allowed to have access to military and intelligence secrets just because?"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday."
I understand what Miller is saying. He also said exactly what my point is: dude wants his day in court he should surrender.
I just didn't understand your statement.
the quote from the initial Link is the exact opposite of which you seem to think it is.I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make then. Please expand on it, because, as written, you are suggesting that, since al-Awlaki is a citizen, the government should be forced to disclose documents for this lawsuit.No.So you, as a U.S. citizen, should just be allowed to have access to military and intelligence secrets just because?"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday."
I understand what Miller is saying. He also said exactly what my point is: dude wants his day in court he should surrender.
I just didn't understand your statement.
fair enough, I was posting pretty fast there anyway, my posts tend to make much less sense when I do.
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
Nope. Thankfully those aren't the only options. I'd feel better if we captured him and tried him...
|
|
Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. If he is a citizen of Yemen, then he is no longer a citizen of the US. Blow his ass away, that's what he wants, right? It would be disappointing if Obama had not invoked the state secrets laws and had instead given sensitive info to a terrorist.He wants to be "blown away." Where did he say this?
Where is the evidence he is a terrorist? Without a trial how would anyone know?
Just because you apparently have no idea who this guy is (clue: his name has been pretty well know to people who follow these things for years now) doesn't mean the burden of proof here is on Xpltvdeleted. You have Google, use it.
And, again, if this guy wants his day in court, he can surrender to authorities. He has taken refuge in a country sympathetic to extreme Islamic terrorists, one that does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S. So, according to your logic, since we cannot get to him, and he will not surrender, we should just allow him to keep hatching plots to commit acts of terror and influence others to carry out acts of violence as well.
And, since several historic barbaric figures never were put on trial, we should wipe the history books of all reference to them. They never had a trial, how can we know?
Since you seem to have such a grasp on the situation here, what would you suggest the government do? Apparently you have some grand plan to bring him to justice, so please enlighten us poor denizens of the real world with your wisdom.
|
|
Nope. Thankfully those aren't the only options. I'd feel better if we captured him and tried him...Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
So, committing an act of war to kidnap him from Yemen is preferable to just taking him out? Either way, it gives extremists yet another contrived excuse to do what they'd do anyway, so why put more lives at risk with a kidnapping plan?
So, committing an act of war to kidnap him from Yemen is preferable to just taking him out? Either way, it gives extremists yet another contrived excuse to do what they'd do anyway, so why put more lives at risk with a kidnapping plan?Nope. Thankfully those aren't the only options. I'd feel better if we captured him and tried him...Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
Cause going to Yemen and *killing* him wouldn't be an "act of war?" Seriously, do you even think out this stuff before you type it? I'm quite sure the extremeist could never martyr him if we did kill. Nope. Never.
|
|
So, committing an act of war to kidnap him from Yemen is preferable to just taking him out? Either way, it gives extremists yet another contrived excuse to do what they'd do anyway, so why put more lives at risk with a kidnapping plan?Nope. Thankfully those aren't the only options. I'd feel better if we captured him and tried him...Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
Cause going to Yemen and *killing* him wouldn't be an "act of war?" Seriously, do you even think out this stuff before you type it? I'm quite sure the extremeist could never martyr him if we did kill. Nope. Never.
L
O
L
I probably have thought this out about as much as you and NPC Dave have, that is, not really at all.
But then, I really don't give a damn about the "rights" of people who have no consideration of the rights of anyone else. While you and NPC Dave are thinking about wonderful humanitarian ways to kidnap this guy from Yemen, the victims of the next few attacks this guy plans will surely thank you for your restraint. Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah. The only real way to appease them is to acknowledge the error of our ways and submit to his will.
We're at war with people who do not recognize any rules of engagement. You can wax philosophic about the "damage to our souls" taking this douchebag out will do, I will just keep being pragmatic and know that sometimes you just have to do things that are distasteful in order to win an asymmetrical war.
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.
Pretty much, yeah.
I guess that makes me "naive," or perhaps even a traitor. Who knew the good old days of 2002 would be back so soon...
So, committing an act of war to kidnap him from Yemen is preferable to just taking him out? Either way, it gives extremists yet another contrived excuse to do what they'd do anyway, so why put more lives at risk with a kidnapping plan?Nope. Thankfully those aren't the only options. I'd feel better if we captured him and tried him...Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. There is a Federal bench warrant out for this scumbag. If he wants his day in court, all he has to do is surrender to authorities. Until he does that, he's a legitimate military target. Treason carries a death penalty. Maybe they should just try him in absentia and have a Predator drone execute the sentence.
Would that make you feel better?
Cause going to Yemen and *killing* him wouldn't be an "act of war?" Seriously, do you even think out this stuff before you type it? I'm quite sure the extremeist could never martyr him if we did kill. Nope. Never.
L
O
LI probably have thought this out about as much as you and NPC Dave have, that is, not really at all.
But then, I really don't give a damn about the "rights" of people who have no consideration of the rights of anyone else. While you and NPC Dave are thinking about wonderful humanitarian ways to kidnap this guy from Yemen, the victims of the next few attacks this guy plans will surely thank you for your restraint. Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah. The...
Sorry for the dickish response there...bad day.
To me, this really seems like we're doing exactly what we're condemning him for doing. Maybe I am just naive.
|
|
Presumably the disappointment is due to Obama attempting to continue the usurpation of the US government seizing powers it doesn't have, bypassing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and executing US citizens without such formalities as a trial, a jury of peers, etc, etc... You know, all those little things that were designed to keep the US government from becoming a tyranny and police state.Pretty much, yeah.
I guess that makes me "naive," or perhaps even a traitor. Who knew the good old days of 2002 would be back so soon...
Anyway, shame on me for creating what I thought was going to be a fairly uncontroversial thread! :P
That you thought this thread would be uncontroversial is either a lie or proof of your naivety. Your choice.
Personally, I think you know better than to think this wasn't going to turn into that it did, you're much smarter than that, imo.
|
|
Sorry for the dickish response there...bad day.
To me, this really seems like we're doing exactly what we're condemning him for doing. Maybe I am just naive.
I expect the dickish response. I thought that was part of the fun of our on line relationship. To paraphrase you, you always have a couch in Houston if you need it, this stuff means dick all to me, really.
It's a tough situation. On the one hand, we like to think we're better than other nations when it comes to stuff like this, but, in reality, sometimes we have to do what is distasteful but necessary. Getting this guy to trial is very unlikely, so we're faced with do nothing and let him influence more people like Major A!%&@$% in Ft. hood, or take him out.
|
|
I probably have thought this out about as much as you and NPC Dave have, that is, not really at all.
But then, I really don't give a damn about the "rights" of people who have no consideration of the rights of anyone else. While you and NPC Dave are thinking about wonderful humanitarian ways to kidnap this guy from Yemen, the victims of the next few attacks this guy plans will surely thank you for your restraint. Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah. The...
I am going to correct a few erroneous statements made about me here, I don't speak for anyone else.
As houstonderek has admitted, he hasn't thought this out much at all.
I, however, have thought about this for quite a long time. Long before this guy was news, long before Osama bin Laden was a household name. Allowing the government to take away anyone's rights eventually lets the government take away more of everyone's rights. The Bill of Rights is supposed to be handcuffs on the government to protect us from it.
I am not thinking about "wonderful humanitarian ways to kidnap" anyone. I don't think about the Yemen guy much at all. I do know the government has been crying wolf about terrorists for some time now, claiming it will be able to make everyone safe if only we give up just a little more of our freedom...until the next strike, when we find out we didn't give up enough and must give up some more.
They aren't affecting my freedom by killing someone who has effectively declared war on the U.S., has taken refuge in a country that is a refuge for terrorists, and has actively had a hand in more than one direct attack on his fellow American citizens.
If he is that concerned about his rights, then he should do what he is legally compelled to do: honor the bench warrant, turn himself in, and present his case in front of the jury. The Constitution leaves that avenue open to him, and the government is more than willing to give him his day in court. They never said they weren't. Absent of his willingness to do what U.S. law says he is supposed to do, I don't see how the government is obligated to make sure the warrant isn't served on the tip of an Air to Surface missile launched from a Predator drone.
lol
tough as nail Delta-Forcers (kill-kill-kill),
would be lawyer Robin Hoods,
a bootlicker
and a raunchy brown bear
thanks folks!
|
|
I probably have thought this out about as much as you and NPC Dave have, that is, not really at all.
But then, I really don't give a damn about the "rights" of people who have no consideration of the rights of anyone else. While you and NPC Dave are thinking about wonderful humanitarian ways to kidnap this guy from Yemen, the victims of the next few attacks this guy plans will surely thank you for your restraint. Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah. The...
I am going to correct a few erroneous statements made about me here, I don't speak for anyone else.
As houstonderek has admitted, he hasn't thought this out much at all.
I, however, have thought about this for quite a long time. Long before this guy was news, long before Osama bin Laden was a household name. Allowing the government to take away anyone's rights eventually lets the government take away more of everyone's rights. The Bill of Rights is supposed to be handcuffs on the government to protect us from it.
I am not thinking about "wonderful humanitarian ways to kidnap" anyone. I don't think about the Yemen guy much at all. I do know the government has been crying wolf about terrorists for some time now, claiming it will be able to make everyone safe if only we give up just a little more of our freedom...until the next strike, when we find out we didn't give up enough and must give up some more.
They aren't affecting my freedom by killing someone who has effectively declared war on the U.S., has taken refuge in a country that is a refuge for terrorists, and has actively had a hand in more than one direct attack on his fellow American citizens.
If he is that concerned about his rights, then he should do what he is legally compelled to do: honor the bench warrant, turn himself in, and present his case in front of the jury. The Constitution leaves that avenue open to him, and the government is more than willing to give him his day in court....
By your logic, police officers should never kill a suspect who brandishes a gun and takes a shot at an officer. The guy hasn't been found guilty, after all. This guy's weapon is others gullible enough to walk onto an Army post and kill soldiers, or strap on explosive Underoos. No difference at all from the criminal who takes a shot at officers, in my opinion.
|
|
Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah.Do the people of Switzerland exist? Yes they do.
Do the people of Switzerland bow down to Allah? No they don't.
Do Islamic extremists hate the people of Switzerland? I have no idea, but I do know they don't launch terrorist attacks against Switzerland.
So maybe, just maybe, it is something else other than your two suggestions which it the cause of Islamic animosity toward the USA?
Oh, trust me, Switzerland is probably on the hit list after they passed the "no minaret" law. And, if you wish to take this a step further, there are already sections of several European countries where non-Muslims do not dare to tread. History has shown time and time again that it is a gradual process.
|
A serious question for those who say this guy should be given the rights of a trial before being killed:
Should Lincoln have properly instructed his northern troops to avoid shooting the rebels and instead have sought to arrest them? If not, what is the difference between an American citizen at war with the US Government in the Civil war and an American citizen at war with the US as a terrorist member of a foreign militia? And if there is no difference, why, in a time of war, does it matter how a man is killed or when he is killed? Is it not legitimate, in war, to kill the enemy?
|
has anyone here heard of Schenck vs USA? It established the clear and present danger precedent which allows certain activities, in the interest of national security. The tactical elimination of an enemy of the state is a common practice by the bulk of the countries of the world. The litigious debate of whether the case should be dropped or the information disclosed is moot as the clear and present danger precedent will have the disclosure request squashed quietly and without fanfare and the United States will continue act in its interests as it has for the past 234 years.
|
|
Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah.Do the people of Switzerland exist? Yes they do.
Do the people of Switzerland bow down to Allah? No they don't.
Do Islamic extremists hate the people of Switzerland? I have no idea, but I do know they don't launch terrorist attacks against Switzerland.
So maybe, just maybe, it is something else other than your two suggestions which it the cause of Islamic animosity toward the USA?