terriorist denied due process ???

[E4 No More]

On this topic, I am always intrigued by the total lack of understanding people have about the concept of rights as conceived and understood by our founders and the political philosophers who inspired them. The argument that people who are not US citizens do not have the same rights as we do is a total misinterpretation.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects them. Our Declaration of Independence (the statement of the political values our country was established on and the Constitution reflects) clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Note that it says "all men" - not just US citizens. It also says that governments are supposed to SECURE these rights, not grant them solely to US citizens or decide to whom they apply. Our system of government was founded upon John Locke's Enlightenment concept of natural rights, rights that all people possess by being born (hence the statement "endowed by their Creator). ALL PEOPLE have these rights and of all the nations of the world, we should be the ones that lead by example and demonstrate that we actually believe what we say we stand for. When we allow government to pick and choose those who these natural rights apply to based upon an arbitrary label, then none of our rights are safe because people cal always craft justifications to limit them or take them away.

Do I feel sorry for the douchebag we killed? Not one bit, but I do question the ethics of our nation choosing to assassinate people instead of making every legitimate effort to capture them. The excuse that the guy was a terrorist is a justification that people have come up with to make it OK to ignore our laws, our national values, and quite possibly international law, which we expect other nations to follow when dealing with our citizens. The government says that they had been tracking Al-Awlaki for three weeks. Seems like plenty of time to snatch the guy up to me. If we really aspire to live up to the values contained in our founding documents, that means we have to follow those ethics in all cases, especially if it is distasteful.

Actions speak louder than words: I think that fact that the Founding Fathers allowed slavery in this country blows your point right out of the water.

[E4 No More]

Doubtful. Yemen is not that friendly an environment, at least not in '00 and '01 and I doubt it has gotten better. Not only that but we are so risk averse that I think it's a good chance we did not.

Make no mistake, it was probably the right call, I just as said, am concerned about the wording that makes me wonder what we really had, and the fact we took out so

an American.

Regardless of how nasty he was that is a lingering fact. We have strayed to far across the line of what is easy to do in the name of security even though we will never have 100% security. We have to resist that urge else it will one day be abused by some chucklehead.

I also did it funny that the guy is being hailed as being such a kill. From the info available he was a mouth.

Bin Laden was just a mouth too.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Actions speak louder than words: I think that fact that the Founding Fathers allowed slavery in this country blows your point right out of the water.

I will go on a limb and recommend that you research the founding father's view on Slavery a little more. It's not the slavery that we (this age and generation) believe it to be. **** the Bible authorizes guidelines to have slaves. With out government being founded on Christian values Slavery (if adhered to in accordance to the Bible) was acceptable. However, some land owners did not follow the guidelines and improperly utilized and mistreated their slaves.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Reading this string has left me confused. Does anyone know what our constitution stands for? Or what the Presidents Job is as the Commander in Chief? This countries first job is to protect the people of this country. If an American becomes a terrorist leaves our country, joins a radical group and openly speaks out against America and her citizens, and then plans attacks, and commits Sedition and Subversion against our country he is a threat and it is the governments RESPONSIBILITY to eliminate that threat in order to protect it's law abiding citizens. Due process my ass. The ACLU has nothing better to do than second guess and challenge every decision that is made to protect it's people.

Terrorism is the fastest growing opposition that this country has. When you can prove that one of our own has planned and trained to attack us, he is accepting his fate to be killed along with anyone else who threatens the security of this country. This piece of crap was recorded on video talking about how America is evil and must be destroyed. So what should the government have done? Travel half way around to world in to a country which is known to hate American and westerners there and regularly kill them openly in the street to arrest this guy so he can go in a court? Or perhaps we should have approached their Al-Qaeda supporting Government and asked them to hand him over to us? I have no issue hunting down every confirmed threat against this country and eliminating them. Regardless of they are American or not.

[E4 No More]

I will go on a limb and recommend that you research the founding father's view on Slavery a little more. It's not the slavery that we (this age and generation) believe it to be. **** the Bible authorizes guidelines to have slaves. With out government being founded on Christian values Slavery (if adhered to in accordance to the Bible) was acceptable. However, some land owners did not follow the guidelines and improperly utilized and mistreated their slaves.

Collegiate level American History, (taught by a suprisingly apolitical professor), was sufficient for instructing me that bond servants, (or indentured servants), do not equate to the slavery that occured in this country, and also that the Founding Fathers only allowed it to appease the South: however, they still allowed it to occur and did not equate a black man as a man.

[sigmtnman]

Collegiate level American History,

You mean liberal history right?

One thing I found back when I attended college was that most every professor had an agenda and most every professor was close minded and took offense to challenging their view of history, which generally was written by the north. To boot they were no smarter than the common man, yet much more dangerous due to the influence they wield. But hey, they sure know how to string together big words.

Edited October 3, 2011 by sigmtnman

[TMF]

You mean liberal history right?

One thing I found back when I attended college was that most every professor had an agenda and most every professor was close minded and took offense to challenging their view of history, which generally was written by the north. To boot they were no smarter than the common man, yet much more dangerous due to the influence they wield. But hey, they sure know how to string together big words.

That's why I stayed stoned the whole time so I didn't absorb any of the liberal message... or anything else for that matter!

[Guest adamoxtwo]

the Founding Fathers only allowed it to appease the South: however, they still allowed it to occur and did not equate a black man as a man.

Really!? Only in the South? Only Black Men? What about the Irish, Italian, and Chinese? They were slaves as well. Also, slavery did not start in America but I'm sure you knew that already. Don't by all of the hype college professor's throw at you. Do independent research that tells the other side of the story and make up your own mind. Propaganda goes both ways.

[sigmtnman]

That's why I stayed stoned the whole time

You sure you weren't a professor?

[sigmtnman]

Really!? Only in the South? Only Black Men? What about the Irish, Italian, and Chinese? They were slaves as well. Also, slavery did not start in America but I'm sure you knew that already. Don't by all of the hype college professor's throw at you. Do independent research that tells the other side of the story and make up your own mind. Propaganda goes both ways.

Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision

-General Pat Cleburne, CSA

[E4 No More]

You mean liberal history right?

One thing I found back when I attended college was that most every professor had an agenda and most every professor was close minded and took offense to challenging their view of history, which generally was written by the north. To boot they were no smarter than the common man, yet much more dangerous due to the influence they wield. But hey, they sure know how to string together big words.

As I said earlier he was apolitical. He presented both sides, and was quite refreshing compared to other professors that I had.

[E4 No More]

Really!? Only in the South? Only Black Men? What about the Irish, Italian, and Chinese? They were slaves as well. Also, slavery did not start in America but I'm sure you knew that already. Don't by all of the hype college professor's throw at you. Do independent research that tells the other side of the story and make up your own mind. Propaganda goes both ways.

Coming from someone who had an Irish great-uncle lynched as a "Chicken Thief," I think I understand completely, and do no buy into anyone's hype.

[mikegideon]

Lynched? I would much rather be blown up.

[E4 No More]

Lynched? I would much rather be blown up.

It would certainly be quicker.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

As I said earlier he was apolitical. He presented both sides, and was quite refreshing compared to other professors that I had.

I understand what you said, but it is still a believe of his and his alone. I'm sure other professors (even apolitical ones) disagree with his thoughts. But I see you already know it all. Hats off to you, but I don't understand why someone with a great uncle who was a chicken thief being lynched had anything to so with anything at all. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid man it will get better.

[Spook]

Here's an articulate case made for why Al-Alwaki was a valid target.

Don't Cry Over Terrorist Awlaki's Death - Investors.com

[sigmtnman]

...I don't trust Obama with determining what protections I should be allowed as a citizen any more than I trust him with our general defense, the economy, health care, job growth - or anything else.

The usual justification for such abuse of the rule of law is that the post-9/11 period demands a different code of conduct to ensure people's safety. But politicians can always find excuses for why they should be allowed to disobey the Constitution.

Our current President may think he can go to war without consulting Congress as the Constitution demands he must, simply because he has determined that a nation like Libya needed our assistance. He and his party may believe they can saddle the American people with a national health care program, the authority of which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, merely because they deem it an emergency-like situation.

Simply put, it's hard to imagine an issue in which this President could not find some extraordinary excuse to circumvent the rule of law. In fact, most of what he's done to date is precisely along these illegal lines, with the Awlaki assassination being just the latest example.

I believe in our Constitution. I believe U.S. citizens who are tried and convicted of treason should face the ultimate consequence. Arresting and trying someone like Awlaki is not for his benefit, but for the benefit of all American citizens.

Serving justice is unquestionably necessary and important. But so is how it is served. Our first concern should always be for the rule of law, or we will continue to find ourselves under the rule of the lawless. This becomes of special concern when the lawless can now include the President of the United States.

Paul, a congressman from Texas, is running for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/1...l#ixzz1ZkyxJtFI

Dr. Paul on trusting Obama.

[E4 No More]

I understand what you said, but it is still a believe of his and his alone. I'm sure other professors (even apolitical ones) disagree with his thoughts. But I see you already know it all. Hats off to you, but I don't understand why someone with a great uncle who was a chicken thief being lynched had anything to so with anything at all. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid man it will get better.

Umm, because his real crime was being Irish and NOT a chicken thief. Or do you believe stealing chickens is a capital offense?

[sigmtnman]

Umm, because his real crime was being Irish and NOT a chicken thief. Or do you believe stealing chickens is a capital offense?

Are you saying he didn't commit the offense or just that the offense was worse than claimed, thus the lynchin?

[daddyo]

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution isn't that difficult to understand.

Wonder what Judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about it? Oh, here we go:

The Plain Truth about Executive Assassination - Fox Business Video - Fox Business

[Jonnin]

On this topic, I am always intrigued by the total lack of understanding people have about the concept of rights as conceived and understood by our founders and the political philosophers who inspired them. The argument that people who are not US citizens do not have the same rights as we do is a total misinterpretation. The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects them. Our Declaration of Independence (the statement of the political values our country was established on and the Constitution reflects) clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Note that it says "all men" - not just US citizens. It also says that governments are supposed to SECURE these rights, not grant them solely to US citizens or decide to whom they apply. Our system of government was founded upon John Locke's Enlightenment concept of natural rights, rights that all people possess by being born (hence the statement "endowed by their Creator). ALL PEOPLE have these rights and of all the nations of the world, we should be the ones that lead by example and demonstrate that we actually believe what we say we stand for. When we allow government to pick and choose those who these natural rights apply to based upon an arbitrary label, then none of our rights are safe because people cal always craft justifications to limit them or take them away.Do I feel sorry for the douchebag we killed? Not one bit, but I do question the ethics of our nation choosing to assassinate people instead of making every legitimate effort to capture them. The excuse that the guy was a terrorist is a justification that people have come up with to make it OK to ignore our laws, our national values, and quite possibly international law, which we expect other nations to follow when dealing with our citizens. The government says that they had been tracking Al-Awlaki for three weeks. Seems like plenty of time to snatch the guy up to me. If we really aspire to live up to the values contained in our founding documents, that means we have to follow those ethics in all cases, especially if it is distasteful.

I am going to agree with this 100%. Then I am going to wonder if we should give our troops tasers and haul every enemy back to the states to stand trial. This would be the ethical thing to do, but it would also be terribly inefficient and ineffective. A good bomb in the right place is an ugly, but practical and acceptable way to handle the enemy during a war.

[sigmtnman]

I am going to agree with this 100%. Then I am going to wonder if we should give our troops tasers and haul every enemy back to the states to stand trial. This would be the ethical thing to do, but it would also be terribly inefficient and ineffective. A good bomb in the right place is an ugly, but practical and acceptable way to handle the enemy during a war.

If said alleged enemies are US citizens, then per the constitution, yes. Treason is clearly defined in the constitution.

Without proper evidence and handling this is an impeachable offense.

[sigmtnman]

Cognitive dissonance. Hardly any of us trust Obama or his admin with anything else, but we are ok with secret evidence against this citizen?

Have I missed the evidence to support Treason as defined in the Constitution? I'm not talking about "alleged ties" or "said ties".

[E4 No More]

Are you saying he didn't commit the offense or just that the offense was worse than claimed, thus the lynchin?

Well, since my father wasn't even a grin on my grandfather's face at the time I can only state that he was lynched for being Irish in the wrong place. As I understand it, the fellow wasn't exactly poor and didn't need to steal a chicken in order to eat.

[sigmtnman]

Well, since my father wasn't even a grin on my grandfather's face at the time I can only state that he was lynched for being Irish in the wrong place. As I understand it, the fellow wasn't exactly poor and didn't need to steal a chicken in order to eat.

So, it would appear as though things are not always as they seem. Duly noted.