Another one bites the dust...

[spec4]

100 post. Folks, we need to agree to disagree. Personally, I think the guy renounced his citizenship and was entitled to zero protection under our laws. Further discourse is a waste of time.

 

[Expat]

100 post. Folks, we need to agree to disagree. Personally, I think the guy renounced his citizenship and was entitled to zero protection under our laws. Further discourse is a waste of time.

But that would apply to 95% of our posts

 

[spec4]

Point taken!!

 

[GREEN607]

Im guessing that the power the executive branch has grabbed over the last decade we will soon be having this discussion about an american citizen "alleged bad guy" killed on american soil.

You really need to think about it, this way......

The United States Of America, is a republic. A 'union' of her citizens. We have always maintained and respected "a brotherhood" (if you will) among our citizens. So in effect, we are a family.

Now, let's suppose.... that a friend of yours, lost his mind or went way left or right in his thinking. And suddenly, he openly and publicly slandered and threatened your way of life, your family, and your very existence. He goes on the web, and makes serious & obvious violent threats against you and your family. He also incites others to exercise violence against you and your family.....

Then, he actually coerces with and advises someone who literally takes a rifle and a handgun, in your home town....and guns down part of your family. If this guy, this former friend, then made his whereabouts and presence known to you.. and continued to further threaten your family....... what steps are you going to take???

Are you going to call the police and depend on their actions to try and get him in time? Are you going to wait until Monday, and call the District Attorney, and hope that his office is going to take immediate action to eliminate this very real threat?

I don't know about you..... but me? I'm putting a bullet in his forehead, or at the very least... taking one of his legs off with continued semi-auto rapid fire, and then make certain he is either imprisoned for life or dead! Eliminate the threat.... and ask questions, later!

 

[Plinker]

You really need to think about it, this way......

The United States Of America, is a republic. A 'union' of her citizens. We have always maintained and respected "a brotherhood" (if you will) among our citizens. So in effect, we are a family.

Now, let's suppose.... that a friend of yours, lost his mind or went way left or right in his thinking. And suddenly, he openly and publicly slandered and threatened your way of life, your family, and your very existence. He goes on the web, and makes serious & obvious violent threats against you and your family. He also incites others to exercise violence against you and your family.....

Then, he actually coerces with and advises someone who literally takes a rifle and a handgun, in your home town....and guns down part of your family. If this guy, this former friend, then made his whereabouts and presence known to you.. and continued to further threaten your family....... what steps are you going to take???

Are you going to call the police and depend on their actions to try and get him in time? Are you going to wait until Monday, and call the District Attorney, and hope that his office is going to take immediate action to eliminate this very real threat?

I don't know about you..... but me? I'm putting a bullet in his forehead, or at the very least... taking one of his legs off with continued semi-auto rapid fire, and then make certain he is either imprisoned for life or dead! Eliminate the threat.... and ask questions, later!

Hmm, I don't know. Does this hypothetical 'family' abide by a constitution?

 

[GREEN607]

I swear! Some of you peeps wouldn't even defend your own home and family!

You need to quit depending on the 'entitlement' of a police state.. and fend for yourself, sometimes. What in heck do you think the 'carry' laws and LTCH are for, anyway???

Same thing with our military. We cannot tie their hands with an abundance of 'rules of engagement' and politically correct BS.....and expect them to defend this country, that way.

Edited to add: I do not believe in mob rule or lynch mobs or vigilate posse's.... but the right thing to do, is the right thing to do. Period!

 

[WWIIIDefender]

You really need to think about it, this way......

The United States Of America, is a republic. A 'union' of her citizens. We have always maintained and respected "a brotherhood" (if you will) among our citizens. So in effect, we are a family.

Now, let's suppose.... that a friend of yours, lost his mind or went way left or right in his thinking. And suddenly, he openly and publicly slandered and threatened your way of life, your family, and your very existence. He goes on the web, and makes serious & obvious violent threats against you and your family. He also incites others to exercise violence against you and your family.....

Then, he actually coerces with and advises someone who literally takes a rifle and a handgun, in your home town....and guns down part of your family. If this guy, this former friend, then made his whereabouts and presence known to you.. and continued to further threaten your family....... what steps are you going to take???

Are you going to call the police and depend on their actions to try and get him in time? Are you going to wait until Monday, and call the District Attorney, and hope that his office is going to take immediate action to eliminate this very real threat?

I don't know about you..... but me? I'm putting a bullet in his forehead, or at the very least... taking one of his legs off with continued semi-auto rapid fire, and then make certain he is either imprisoned for life or dead! Eliminate the threat.... and ask questions, later!

You would also be held accountible for your actions. I do see your point and would probably take similar action, but I would fully expect to be held accountible for taking the law into my own hands. In my post I was talking about assasinations on our soil. I am all for holding bad guys accountible, but I don't see why we can't use the law. If they resist when we try to bring them in then by all means double tap. I am however against assasination with out due process.

 

[rambone]

The Constitution is NOT some worldwide get out of jail free card.

The constitution is never a "get out of jail free" card. It is a limitation on the U.S. Government. And those limits exist where ever the U.S. Government sticks its nose. Yemen or Indiana, a precedent has been set. Hope you feel safer, but I think we are all in greater danger now.

And again the Constitution doesn't protect enemey combatants engaged in war against the US.

So all it takes to be a "enemey combatant engaged in war" is an email address and a YouTube account. Interesting. I see why you are so scared of him now. Good thing the CIA summarily executes these internet warriors.

I wonder what the sentence is for an internet warrior who rants about genocide of muslims? That would be something a scary internet terrorist would say. Let us know if you hear any suspicious terror-talk online so the government can keep us safe from it.

So if someone breaks into my house and rapes my wife and kills my kids I should subdue them and hold them for the police so they can have a fair trial?

Most irrelevant analogy ever.

I swear! Some of you peeps wouldn't even defend your own home and family!

Defense and offense are not interchangeable.

 

[GREEN607]

Defense and offense are not interchangeable.

"The best defense, is a good offense." -Carl von Clausewitz

He also is quoted as having said, "The 'fog' of war, calls for rapid decisions by alert commanders."

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The constitution is never a "get out of jail free" card. It is a limitation on the U.S. Government. And those limits exist where ever the U.S. Government sticks its nose. Yemen or Indiana, a precedent has been set. Hope you feel safer, but I think we are all in greater danger now.

Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is surpassed only by your contempt of it.

The Constitution establishes the military, the rules under which the military is organized and funded, and who is in charge of it. Everything else is left to legislation - you know, the laws you hate. The Constitution doesn't dictate every task the government may or may not undertake. But you know that - you just don't like it and refuse to accept it.

So all it takes to be a "enemey combatant engaged in war" is an email address and a YouTube account. Interesting. I see why you are so scared of him now. Good thing the CIA summarily executes these internet warriors.

I wonder what the sentence is for an internet warrior who rants about genocide of muslims? That would be something a scary internet terrorist would say. Let us know if you hear any suspicious terror-talk online so the government can keep us safe from it.

Speaking of Internet warriors, hows that complaint thing working out for you? You still pee your pants when you drive past Chesterton or did you get over it?

Most irrelevant analogy ever.

Not really. Just doesn't fit your worldview.

Defense and offense are not interchangeable.

Sometimes they are. But again, doesn't fit your worldview.

You should color another picture. I think Auburn Days are still on.

 

[rambone]

Whew, some real zingers getting thrown around here. The jokes get even better when 5 people repeat them.

Back to the OP. The U.S. government retitled this guy on the day of his death. That way the constitution-benders could justify it a little easier in their heads. "Chief of External Operations" sounds a lot scarier than "Guy Accused of Writing Mean-Spirited Emails." Carry on.

Anwar al-Aulaqi gets new designation in death

U.S. officials have given Anwar al-Aulaqi a newly elevated designation on the day of his death by drone strike, describing him as “chief of external operations” for al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. The new title, cited by officials at the White House and the CIA, reflects Aulaqi’s evolution from Muslim cleric to alleged terrorist plotter, as well as a desire by American officials to persuade the public that the extraordinary killing of a U.S. citizen overseas was warranted.

 

[bigg cheese]

I'm still waiting on an answer to one question that are seemingly ignored by a "mob" mentality of fist-bumping and "Yay we got'im!"

Since the constitution declares that all citizens get a RIGHT to due process, exactly how did he lose that right, legally? This means what LAW says that he can lose his rights. Not just labeling him a combatant, of which there is no presented proof other than the .gov's insinuation.

There are currently three ways I can find of becoming a non-citizen, thereby stripping you of your rights:
1. renouncement by becoming a citizen of another nation (legal public and formal process)
2. stripped of rights (legal public and formal process)
3. joining the army of a foreign state.

We have legal limitations that all of us must accept on the 2nd amendment, for crazy people, murderers, etc. Even the government last year was concerned about this fact, for this exact assassination, and they were talking about passing a law to get around it, but it never happened.

Seriously, if we all get up in arms (no pun intended) when our 2nd amendment rights risk infringement, why not the rest of the constitution?

I know that covert-ish assassinations have taken place before by our own government, but never before have I seen such complacency, if not outright joy that our constitution is being violated, regardless of the man, and by conservatives. The man is not the point. There is a dangerous precedent that could allow a Nixon "enemies list" to become a "target list" and it will be considered legal because the president said that they're "treasonous" or an "enemy combatant." I totally understand if he was actually in combat, but if he was drone-bombed, this can't be the case.

Consider carefully -- will you defend all of the constitution, or just the parts that you like, or even look over one case because this guy was a douchebag?

 

[GREEN607]

Anwar al-Awlaki, joined "the foreign state" of 'holy jihad' against the United States.

In the Islamic world, it is widely accepted that there two, and only two 'definitions' of jihad.

1) "the inner struggle to live one's life in accordance with God's will"

2) "the external 'waging of holy war' against all non-Islamic believers and civlizations"

In a violence-promoting speech, given in England in 2002...... al-Awlaki said this-

"I could not reconcile living in the U.S. and being a Muslim; and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim."

That, my friends, is a declaration of war. He got all the 'due process' due him.... and that is that.

 

[bigg cheese]

Holy Jihad is not a legal term, country, or state.

Try again.

 

[firehawk1]

Holy Jihad is not a legal term, country, or state.

Try again.

GOD I tried to stay out of this one.


This is a new world, we are fighting a rather organized/unorganized band of radical thugs all over the world, NOT a country. We MUST adapt in time of war, or we will be run over. We can ***** about the Constitutionality of this while they burn it in front of us and slit our throats. The enemy is laughing while they take us over by using our "ideals" against us. Hitler took over Germany in a large part by using "the system" against his political enemies. But hey, feel good cause we lived up to our American ideals.... while you're bleeding out.

THAT mentality is insane.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

GOD I tried to stay out of this one.


This is a new world, we are fighting a rather organized/unorganized band of radical thugs all over the world, NOT a country. We MUST adapt in time of war, or we will be run over. We can ***** about the Constitutionality of this while they burn it in front of us and slit our throats. The enemy is laughing while they take us over by using our "ideals" against us. Hitler took over Germany in a large part by using "the system" against his political enemies. But hey, feel good cause we lived up to our American ideals.... while you're bleeding out.

THAT mentality is insane.

So there are certain times when the constitution doesnt matter?

 

[Expat]

My only regret is that he won't be buried around here so that I could pee on his grave.

 

[rambone]

My only regret is that he won't be buried around here so that I could pee on his grave.

I heard they are dumping the evidence at sea with the rest of the boogeymen.

 

[firehawk1]

So there are certain times when the constitution doesnt matter?

Are you saying there is no time during a war/conflict that a nation MUST do whatever is necessary to help insure it's survival? In this case taking out a self admitted enemy/traitor? Words/deeds have meaning, and this POS was arrogant enough to believe he could get away with saying/doing that. Well guess what... he wasn't, and I don't want my love for this country to be questioned simply because I refuse to be concerned or shed a tear that a traitor met the fate he deserved.

And I'm not talking about murdering millions of people either, and everyone knows THAT is NOT the issue here, so don't go there. This case has to do with an American citizen that left and denounced his country and incited violence against civilian, government, and military interests of the United States. Even if he had been captured and brought back here it should have only been to stand him up in front of a firing squad.

Besides, if he hadn't been such a coward and ran away and was that upset over the policies of the U.S. he should have run for office and strived to change those policies, NOT become a traitor. Isn't THAT the correct way to effect change on our country?

 

[Westside]

whatever happened to the good old hanging of traitors in the white house lawn?