Another one bites the dust...

[SemperFiUSMC]

Not in the slightest. I'll not be misquoted. I said quite clearly that this is probably a very bad guy - that isn't my point. The actual killing means no nevermind to me. I'm not defending the man -- I'm defending the practice of due process which has just as much "right" as the second amendment. I'm betting the founders were mistaken when they assumed the populace wouldn't need "shall not be infringed" added to the end of it because they thought we would know better.

You can change the subject to try to work some second amendment play, but you're still being obtuse.

You cling to a false premise. People have told you why he received the due process he was entitled to, but your political ideology won't allow you to accept the truth. We understand.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So does sword rattling justify a war then? If so, I would think we should be blowing Iran and North Korea out of the water. So far, they've left us alone (and it's a wonder Iran has, we would be pissed if they did the same things to us). I say let them make threats. When they act on it, we go and get them. When we get them, we come home. The problem is that these wars hardly have anything to do with our security.

What makes you think Iran or North Korea have "left us alone?" Both nations have directly killed our servicemen within recent memory (although "border clashes" along the DMZ get scant press) and the Iranians have not only provided the Iraqi insurgents with sophisticated IEDs, they've also sent their special forces into Iraq to aid them.

Once again, you are apparently exhibiting a fairly narrow view of what constitutes matters pertaining to our national security. Terrorism is a worldwide enterprise these days, and both Iran and North Korea have been and continue to be terrorist-sponsoring States. Honestly, you talk as if you believe that the US is three months sail from Asia and Europe instead of 90 minutes (by ballistic missile) or 8 hours (by jet transport.)

 

[Plinker]

15 years ago if Timothy McVeigh was hiding out in a foreign country, would we be justified with dropping a bomb on his hideout?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

15 years ago if Timothy McVeigh was hiding out in a foreign country, would we be justified with dropping a bomb on his hideout?

If he were hiding out from American justice, no. If he were actively planning another attack against American interests, yes.

 

[CarmelHP]

15 years ago if Timothy McVeigh was hiding out in a foreign country, would we be justified with dropping a bomb on his hideout?

If he was hiding amongst a foreign based enemy that Congress had authorized the President to take military action against, traveling with them, providing aid and support and working in concert with them then hell yes we would. He would be entitled to no more protections than any other enemy combatant.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What are America's interests in your eyes?


You mean the two countries we pitted against each other so we could control the oil? And besides, I was actually responding to this quote:



I'm saying let them declare war. When they move, we fight. We don't take the fight to them just because they're talking ****.

In the first place, Iranians and Iraqis weren't "pitted against each other so we could control the oil;" they had their own cultural and historical axes to grind. We did support Iraq with conventional weaponry; a common policy among various national powers worldwide.

To address the common fallacy that we started or abetted hostilities so we could control oil - why are we still paying such high petroleum prices? We liberated the Kuwatis (oil reserves) and we liberated the Iraqis (oil reserves) but we haven't got any control over those oil resources, nor have we been reimbursed for the costs of their liberation. If controlling those reserves was our aim, why haven't we taken advantage of our military control of the region to take over?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What are America's interests in your eyes?


You mean the two countries we pitted against each other so we could control the oil? And besides, I was actually responding to this quote:



I'm saying let them declare war. When they move, we fight. We don't take the fight to them just because they're talking ****.

We elect a representative government to make those decisions, but America has a lot of interests. National security is chief among them. Meeting obligations to our allies. Economic interests can rise to the level of national security interests.

What two countries, and what oil do we control? I hear this all the time yet there is absolutely no evidence that it happened.

I'll ask one more time because you continue to dodge the question. Who have we attacked for talking s***?

Specifics please. You're the one who brought it up.

 

[bigg cheese]

You can change the subject to try to work some second amendment play, but you're still being obtuse.

You cling to a false premise. People have told you why he received the due process he was entitled to, but your political ideology won't allow you to accept the truth. We understand.

Not one person has explained how he was LEGALLY (as in the law that not even kirk freeman has argued, though he was participating in this thread at one point) stripped of his due process to which he has a right as a citizen.

He has not ever been seen in combat, so just being with them is not justification. saying naughty things about the USA is not justification. Just calling him a combatant is a cop-out.

The courts saying it's out of their hands doesn't legally remove his rights either. It just means it's out of their hands. That is an obtuse inference that remains illegal.

The justification as it exists on the books is as follows:

"I am the president, and I think I want to kill him because I say he's a threat."


*i'm done with this thread -- blood pressure too high *

 

[rambone]

They were therefore entitled to Constitutional protections, the same afforded to American citizens in the same circumstance

The constitution doesn't "offer protections" to people, it "provides restrictions" on Government. Its a fundamental difference of philosophy. That's why it doesn't matter who the guy was, the government is obligated to follow its own founding document... or get some activist judge to help it break free of the constitution.

Our resident anarchist's suggestion that the slippery slope will lead to assassinations on American soil is ludicrous.

We'll see. You have a lot of faith in your beloved leader.

Because they view these terrorists as assaulting the same government that they hate. They frame the discussion as strict adherance to the Constitution, but only in their perverse little minds does that mean we cannot protect ourselves from future acts of war executed by those who have declared it upon us. They blame America for the terror reigned down upon us.

Only in your fascist little mind do you think Due Process hampers your precious security. Go ARREST him, hero! If he puts down his keyboard and resists, THEN use force.

The biggest toughguys seem to be the most terrified of "terror."

Problem is some first have to see him as an enemy, and some here don't/refuse to.

Enemy? Allegedly. Dining at the Pentagon really made his life go downhill.
Threat? No way.

I refuse to bask in the fear that the government generously pours all over the American people. We aren't in danger of internet warriors in Yemen. Our way of life is going to be just fine, until the government takes away our liberties to make us feel safer.

He would be entitled to no more protections than any other enemy combatant.

I keep seeing this term enemy combatant but I wanted to make everyone aware that it is no longer a term recognized by the U.S. government.

U.S. Retires 'Enemy Combatant,' Keeps Broad Right to Detain

I'm not defending the man -- I'm defending the practice of due process which has just as much "right" as the second amendment.

Why do you hate America, son? OOOH RAH

 

[CarmelHP]

I keep seeing this term enemy combatant but I wanted to make everyone aware that it is no longer a term recognized by the U.S. government.

U.S. Retires 'Enemy Combatant,' Keeps Broad Right to Detain

Who cares? Only you and Obama think semantics is the same as substance. You apparently didn't read the article you cited either, the parts about nobody thinking it mattered much if any. This intellectual laziness reveals an astounding ignorance and disinterest of the subjects you're ranting about.

 

[rambone]

Who cares? Only you and Obama think semantics is the same as substance.

He wasn't an "enemy combatant" semantically or substantively.

You apparently didn't read the article you cited either, the parts about nobody thinking it mattered much if any. This intellectual laziness reveals an astounding ignorance and disinterest of the subjects you're ranting about.

I was asking your opinion earlier. I know the activist judge's opinion. Personally I'd rather not have a President with this kind of power. And that's my opinion.

 

[CarmelHP]

He wasn't an "enemy combatant" semantically or substantively.

And why has the Constitution and the Congress left that matter to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces instead of you to make that determination?

I was asking your opinion earlier. I know the activist judge's opinion. Personally I'd rather not have a President with this kind of power. And that's my opinion.

He's an "activist judge" because he refused to disturb two centuries of jurisprudence on to whose judgment the conduct of a war is given? Because he didn't agree with you?

 

[60Driver]

He wasn't an "enemy combatant" semantically or substantively.

He provided recruitment, direction, idealogy and command and control for AQAP. To say he was not a combatant would be the equivalent to saying Patraeus is not a combatant. With all due respect to the "trigger pullers" (having been one), they are dime a dozen, those who set stragey, provide logistical support plans, and execute operational plans win conflicts! He was not just a "combatant" he was a High Value Target of operational if not strageic importance!

And lets review the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed as a Joint resolution 14 SEP 2001.

"Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, "

"Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. "

 

[GREEN607]

I refuse to bask in the fear that the government generously pours all over the American people. We aren't in danger of internet warriors in Yemen. Our way of life is going to be just fine, until the government takes away our liberties to make us feel safer.

Unfortunately, that what a lot of the American public (and lo, even some employees of the FBI) believed......right before the World Trade Center was taken out, by just such 'sabre rattlers'.

You don't seem to have learned the lesson most of us have. Unfortunately.

 

[Garb]

In the first place, Iranians and Iraqis weren't "pitted against each other so we could control the oil;" they had their own cultural and historical axes to grind. We did support Iraq with conventional weaponry; a common policy among various national powers worldwide.

To address the common fallacy that we started or abetted hostilities so we could control oil - why are we still paying such high petroleum prices? We liberated the Kuwatis (oil reserves) and we liberated the Iraqis (oil reserves) but we haven't got any control over those oil resources, nor have we been reimbursed for the costs of their liberation. If controlling those reserves was our aim, why haven't we taken advantage of our military control of the region to take over?

Yes they did, and we got in the middle and played it up because we liked one side better than the other. Controlling the oil doesn't necessarily mean we control it directly. Sometimes we have local warlords control it for us, and we buy it from them. That way they do all the dirty work, and some people think we're just there to fight the terrorists. As for high petroleum prices and why we are paying them: taxes and inflation.

 

[Garb]

We elect a representative government to make those decisions, but America has a lot of interests. National security is chief among them. Meeting obligations to our allies. Economic interests can rise to the level of national security interests.

So is oil a national security issue?

What two countries, and what oil do we control? I hear this all the time yet there is absolutely no evidence that it happened.

Saudi Arabia and Iraq both come to mind. It's why we helped the Saudi tribe control Arabia, and it's why we helped Iraq in their conflict with Iran.

I'll ask one more time because you continue to dodge the question. Who have we attacked for talking s***?

We've attacked a lot of countries because they were allies with the Soviet Union. We also helped countries because they were enemies of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was sword rattling, but both sides new better than to get directly involved. So in response to your question, Korea and Vietnam. We also overthrew Sadam for supporting terrorists and supposedly having nuclear weaponry. However, we were the ones who put him in power in the first place, and a certain moonbat was predicting that playing favorites with evil dictators would kick us in the ass.