Interviews from 'occupy dc' and some liberal college students... WOW!

[88GT]

The logic is the same. There are certain beliefs that "we" hold to be permissible, and if you support X and Y and Z you must be some kind of subversive influence. It predates McCarthy by millenia: leaders and cultures the world over have had their own brand of that sort of persecution. I use McCarthyism because I think most here know about it.

It doesn't matter if a law is used to attack "the Reds" or "the terrorists" or "the right-wing/left-wing paramilitary nutjobs", the idea that the government can arrest a man merely for belonging to a group or espousing a certain belief is simply unconstitutional.

And, yeah, we are. I'm sure someone will be along to correct the flow soon enough

Caw Caw

So donning the uniform of a state with whom we are at war isn't an arrestable offense? And don't play coy, this isn't about *just* getting dressed in the morning.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't think it's terribly wrong that a bad man was killed.

I'm just a little dismayed that we give a government, who everyone believes is full of crooks, cheaters, liars, and worst type of humanity, the power to do so.

Just my take on it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't think it's terribly wrong that a bad man was killed.

I'm just a little dismayed that we give a government, who everyone believes is full of crooks, cheaters, liars, and worst type of humanity, the power to do so.

Just my take on it.

No, we gave a government full of men in wigs the power to do so. We've long since dropped our standards and elected a government full of crooks, cheaters, liars, and worst type of humanity.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No, we gave a government full of men in wigs the power to do so. We've long since dropped our standards and elected a government full of crooks, cheaters, liars, and worst type of humanity.

6 of one half dozen of the other.

Still makes me uneasy. That's all.

The though that Obammer has the power to just point and say, "yeah, that guy, he needs to go," and it happens is just...well...creepy.

 

[88GT]

I don't think it's terribly wrong that a bad man was killed.

I'm just a little dismayed that we give a government, who everyone believes is full of crooks, cheaters, liars, and worst type of humanity, the power to do so.

Just my take on it.

You would prefer an impotent one unable to wage war against foreign enemies?




The logic being used to claim the U.S. assassinated a man seems a little bit confusing to me. The argument follows as such: as a U.S. citizen he is entitled to due process. The same people who subscribe to this viewpoint believe that such rights are not unique to U.S. citizens but in fact are inherent in humanity, that it is our mere state of being alive that imbues us with these rights, and that the Constitution is the affirmation of this and the check of government power against all humans.

Well, then, it must logically follow that every citizen of every other country, regardless of the acts committed, is entitled to the same protections under U.S. law as outlined in the Constitution. So every act of war perpetrated by the U.S. is equally illegal. And every foreign combatant, uniformed or not, sanctioned by the foreign state or not, is entitled, nay obligated, to receive a civilian trial of due process.


If that's not the case, then will someone explain where the distinction lies, please.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You would prefer an impotent one unable to wage war against foreign enemies?




The logic being used to claim the U.S. assassinated a man seems a little bit confusing to me. The argument follows as such: as a U.S. citizen he is entitled to due process. The same people who subscribe to this viewpoint believe that such rights are not unique to U.S. citizens but in fact are inherent in humanity, that it is our mere state of being alive that imbues us with these rights, and that the Constitution is the affirmation of this and the check of government power against all humans.

Well, then, it must logically follow that every citizen of every other country, regardless of the acts committed, is entitled to the same protections under U.S. law as outlined in the Constitution. So every act of war perpetrated by the U.S. is equally illegal. And every foreign combatant, uniformed or not, sanctioned by the foreign state or not, is entitled, nay obligated, to receive a civilian trial of due process.


If that's not the case, then will someone explain where the distinction lies, please.

+1 and repped.

The same crowd demanding Constitutional rights for al Walaki were equally offended when we popped bin Laden. Both were waging war against the United States. Both suffered the consequences for it.

 

[Prometheus]

+1 and repped.

The same crowd demanding Constitutional rights for al Walaki were equally offended when we popped bin Laden. Both were waging war against the United States. Both suffered the consequences for it.

I must have missed it some where, who was offended here when bin laden was killed?

You are also ignorant in your description of Rights.

US Citizens have Rights. Those Rights just so happen to be enumerated in the US Constitution. There is no such thing as 'Constitutional rights'. It implies that those Rights are predicated upon the Constitution or somehow granted by them.

Rights are inherent. Privileges are granted.

Al walaki, a US Citizen, was murdered (assassinated take your pick) on the order of one man: Barrack Obama.

You think obama is destroying the country, dangerous and the worst president ever.... but it's cool he can order US Citizens executed?

That makes no sense.

 

[CarmelHP]

I know that one Axis Sally (Mildred) was convicted of Treason, but didn't the government decline to prosecute the Italian Axis Sally (Rita something or other)?

Mildred Gillars was sentenced to 10 to 30 and was paroled in 1961. Rita Zucca had renounced U.S. citizenship so could not be tried for treason, but an Italian military tribunal sentenced her to 4-1/2 years for war crimes, and she was barred permanently from the United States.That doesn't mean that we wouldn't have dropped a bomb on her *** if we had the chance during the war. I'm sure it was attempted on occasion without any hand wringing from weak sisters.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I must have missed it some where, who was offended here when bin laden was killed?

You are also ignorant in your description of Rights.

US Citizens have Rights. Those Rights just so happen to be enumerated in the US Constitution. There is no such thing as 'Constitutional rights'. It implies that those Rights are predicated upon the Constitution or somehow granted by them.

Rights are inherent. Privileges are granted.

Al walaki, a US Citizen, was murdered (assassinated take your pick) on the order of one man: Barrack Obama.

You think obama is destroying the country, dangerous and the worst president ever.... but it's cool he can order US Citizens executed?

That makes no sense.

You can use the search button to see the threads where the usual gang of Paultards decried the murder of bin Laden.

My use of the term "constitutional rights" mimmicks the use by others. Rights come from God (or nature if you like). The Constitution enumerates certain rights as a means of ensuring that government does not infringe them. However no rights in the Constitution have been held absolute. You have a right to free speech, but not a right to yell fire in a crowed theatre or film sex with children. You have a right against self incrimination, but not in civil cases or if immunity has been granted. Convicted felons do not have second amendment rights. The death penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment even though it terminates life.

In this case al Walaki was targeted as an enemy combatant. He was warned of his fate. His family sought remedy from US Courts. They lost. All he had to do was turn himself in to the nearest American Embassy and subject himself to the American justice system. He didn't. Fate and a tomahawk missle caught up with him. No tears shed, no liberty lost.

Whether I believe Obama is evil incarnate or not is irrelevent. It's the same tired straw man. As Commander in Chief Obama has wide discretion to execute war against our enemies. That includes targeting, by name, specific individuals. There's a really easy way to stay off the list.

I'm sorry if you don't get it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't have a problem with a president having power to wage war. I'm just concerned with the ability to concentrate that "war" on a single person, and enthusiastically so, by a man or woman who may not be restrained or well intentioned.

Power is a weapon. I can be turned upon the innocent as easily as the guilty.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't have a problem with a president having power to wage war. I'm just concerned with the ability to concentrate that "war" on a single person, and enthusiastically so, by a man or woman who may not be restrained or well intentioned.

Power is a weapon. I can be turned upon the innocent as easily as the guilty.

That's what the impeachment and election processes are for.

I am much happier that they said the were targeting him than I would be if it was a covert operation. He had prior knowledge and chose to ignore it. Bad idea.

 

[Prometheus]

You can use the search button to see the threads where the usual gang of Paultards decried the murder of bin Laden.

Some people didn't believe it was actually bin laden who was killed. Considering the guy was on dialysis for a decade, I figured he died of natural causes years ago. I can't fault anyone else for believing the that. Does mean they aren't glad he is dead (still).

My use of the term "constitutional rights" mimmicks the use by others. Rights come from God (or nature if you like). The Constitution enumerates certain rights as a means of ensuring that government does not infringe them. However no rights in the Constitution have been held absolute. You have a right to free speech, but not a right to yell fire in a crowed theatre or film sex with children. You have a right against self incrimination, but not in civil cases or if immunity has been granted. Convicted felons do not have second amendment rights. The death penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment even though it terminates life.

We can agree on the bold part. You pull from all sorts of weirdness for the rest and it would take too long to dissect them all. Cliff notes, you do have a Right to not incriminate yourself, ALWAYS. You voluntarily give up that Right by accepting immunity, thats completely different and not germane to your argument.

Likewise sex with a child (on or off camera) violates the Rights of the child. You only have Rights in so far as they don't impact the equal Rights of others. Again, not germane to your argument.

Convicted felons and firearms... this is a new idea and not in keeping with our system of justice. In keeping with our Constitutional Republic, once you've paid your debt, you are done. A bad decision by a few lawyers in black dresses doesn't change the basic Right.

You mention Rights come from God. I agree Rights are endowed by The Creator. The problem I see is, you are too willing to let a man (or men) subvert those Rights.

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]John Adams wrote, "You have Rights antecedent to all Earthly Governments; Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by Human Laws; Right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."[/FONT]

I couldn't agree more with John Adams.

In this case al Walaki was targeted as an enemy combatant. He was warned of his fate. His family sought remedy from US Courts. They lost. All he had to do was turn himself in to the nearest American Embassy and subject himself to the American justice system. He didn't. Fate and a tomahawk missle caught up with him. No tears shed, no liberty lost.

Newspeak. It's a new age Orwellian word to make people afraid of boogeymen. It's a fictitious creation used to solve a problem by the people who created it. Your argument loses credibility on it's face because of it.

The world is a better place with awaki dead. America is a weaker Republic because of the way it was carried out.

Again, the terrorists have won because we are sacrificing what makes us different than them.

 

[rjstew317]

the fact that he had American citizenship (he actually had duel citizenship between the US and Yemen, US by birth, Yemen by choice) doesn't make him any less of an enemy combatant who was waging war against this country. would you prefer that they killed the group of cronies taking orders from him? I say good riddance, the more leadership of Al Qaeda we kill/murder/assassinate the better.

 

[RockofStrength]

the fact that he had American citizenship (he actually had duel citizenship between the US and Yemen, US by birth, Yemen by choice) doesn't make him any less of an enemy combatant who was waging war against this country. would you prefer that they killed the group of cronies taking orders from him? I say good riddance, the more leadership of Al Qaeda we kill/murder/assassinate the better.

If we are going to sink to their level, then let's have it out. Terrorize their people, burn their holy places, destroy their history, raze their cities to the ground and pour mustard gas over their nations until all lie dead in heaps. Make so terrible an end of them that no one will ever mistake us for a moral people ever again. We should not on the one hand pretend to be a better, freer nation than what these men want and on the other hand abandon the principles of a freer nation for the sake of keeping our freedoms intact. Choose one or the other.

 

[88GT]

I must have missed it some where, who was offended here when bin laden was killed?

Offended I know not. But identical claims of murder and assassination from roughly the same cadre of posters is easily found on threads involving that topic.

You are also ignorant in your description of Rights.

US Citizens have Rights. Those Rights just so happen to be enumerated in the US Constitution. There is no such thing as 'Constitutional rights'. It implies that those Rights are predicated upon the Constitution or somehow granted by them.

Rights are inherent. Privileges are granted.

Al walaki, a US Citizen, was murdered (assassinated take your pick) on the order of one man: Barrack Obama.

You think obama is destroying the country, dangerous and the worst president ever.... but it's cool he can order US Citizens executed?

That makes no sense.

What makes no sense is the idea that rights inherent to humans can NEVER be violated outside civilian courts. And yet we recognize the folly of holding enemy combatants who commit acts of war and threats to our sovereignty to such a standard. Why is that?

If you want to argue that the rights of being human supercede the enumeration of said rights in the Constitution, then you necessarily must hold the position that ALL acts of force initiated against all persons regardless of circumstances without prior due process is always wrong. That there can never be military response from the U.S. to any threat or overt act. Ever.

It's a simple matter of logic.

I don't have a problem with a president having power to wage war. I'm just concerned with the ability to concentrate that "war" on a single person, and enthusiastically so, by a man or woman who may not be restrained or well intentioned.

Power is a weapon. I can be turned upon the innocent as easily as the guilty.

Is the power to wage war against a single person that bothers you more? Or the fact that the person ultimately responsible has no moral compass whatsoever? Serious question.

Was it wrong to target Hitler specifically? Or Sadam? Should we really just limit our actions to general warfare against the company/regiment/division of line soldiers brought to bear against us without regard for the man on the other side of the battle that is ultimately responsible?

 

[88GT]

If we are going to sink to their level, then let's have it out. Terrorize their people, burn their holy places, destroy their history, raze their cities to the ground and pour mustard gas over their nations until all lie dead in heaps. Make so terrible an end of them that no one will ever mistake us for a moral people ever again. We should not on the one hand pretend to be a better, freer nation than what these men want and on the other hand abandon the principles of a freer nation for the sake of keeping our freedoms intact. Choose one or the other.

You would prefer losing the "better, freer" part incrementally or piecemeal because we allowed the threat to continue unstopped? Of course, I don't hold with the notion that the use of force is anathema to what makes us a great nation either.

 

[RockofStrength]

You would prefer losing the "better, freer" part incrementally or piecemeal because we allowed the threat to continue unstopped? Of course, I don't hold with the notion that the use of force is anathema to what makes us a great nation either.

Never once have I ever had a problem with the idea that a nation can use force to protect its national sovereignty and the safety of her citizens. Rather, I contend that if we are able to ignore, however temporarily, the rights and freedoms of our nation for the sake of security then we in fact do not have freedom. We have government permission to live a certain way because we aren't getting in their way.

Capture the man, try him, hang him in the public square as a warning to all enemies of America if he is found guilty of such heinous crimes, but do not for one second consider surrendering the least of our freedoms. "For the greater good" is the scariest of all rallying cries, and for good reason.

 

[Roadie]

If you thought those interviews were interesting..

Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum

I wont post the entire thing, but here are a few interesting ones:

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.


I don't even know where to begin..


(Mods, I wasnt sure if this deserved its own thread or not.. )

 

[RockofStrength]

Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now!

Ok. What are these people smoking, is it legal, and how much of it do you have to use to become this stupid?

 

[Roadie]

Ok. What are these people smoking, is it legal, and how much of it do you have to use to become this stupid?

..add to that THIS gem:

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.