terriorist denied due process ???

[E4 No More]

I might be vengeful, but that wouldn't change what we're discussing.

When you resort to 'it's for the children' emotional pleas, that should tell you something...

It's not an "it's for the children" plea; it's about the hypocrisy of the point some are making here. It's like a herd mentality. They think it'll never happen to them; just to someone else: therefore, they trivialize the point with snide comments like comparing it to "It's for the children" because they consider it so unlikely to actually happen to them. That's all well and good until the lion has you by the throat. Then it is real.

So this clown was involved with the failed underwear bomber. Consider this: if the underwear bomb had gone off and your loved one was on that plane and died; this a-hat was hiding in a country that would not capture/extradite him to the US to stand trial; the country would not allow our government to capture and take him to stand trial; the a-hat continued to kill many more innocent Americans, would you be okay with the extremely unlikely hope that one day, just maybe, the a-hat would slip up and get captured to stand trial but likely would die of old age?

[daddyo]

It's not an "it's for the children" plea; it's about the hypocrisy of the point some are making here. It's like a herd mentality. They think it'll never happen to them; just to someone else: therefore, they trivialize the point with snide comments like comparing it to "It's for the children" because they consider it so unlikely to actually happen to them. That's all well and good until the lion has you by the throat. Then it is real.

So this clown was involved with the failed underwear bomber. Consider this: if the underwear bomb had gone off and your loved one was on that plane and died; this a-hat was hiding in a country that would not capture/extradite him to the US to stand trial; the country would not allow our government to capture and take him to stand trial; the a-hat continued to kill many more innocent Americans, would you be okay with the extremely unlikely hope that one day, just maybe, the a-hat would slip up and get captured to stand trial but likely would die of old age?

Then why don't we just go into the hood and declare open season on bangers? After all, they may kill one of your loved ones some day.

[sigmtnman]

It's not an "it's for the children" plea; it's about the hypocrisy of the point some are making here. It's like a herd mentality. They think it'll never happen to them; just to someone else: therefore, they trivialize the point with snide comments like comparing it to "It's for the children" because they consider it so unlikely to actually happen to them. That's all well and good until the lion has you by the throat. Then it is real.

So this clown was involved with the failed underwear bomber. Consider this: if the underwear bomb had gone off and your loved one was on that plane and died; this a-hat was hiding in a country that would not capture/extradite him to the US to stand trial; the country would not allow our government to capture and take him to stand trial; the a-hat continued to kill many more innocent Americans, would you be okay with the extremely unlikely hope that one day, just maybe, the a-hat would slip up and get captured to stand trial but likely would die of old age?

The heard can't read or understand the Constitution of the United States of America.

It's not that I don't think I could die or be killed. It's that I aint scared and won't to piss on the Constitution.

If ifs and buts were cherries and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas.

Over the last 10 years an average of 35k people have died a year in auto accidents. over 400k since 2001. Where is the war on cars?

[Guest adamoxtwo]

You mean everything we read on the Interwebs is true? I've seen video of David Copperfield making a jet disappear. How do we know this was not all performed by SCL Home - SCL Hub? Without evidence we will never know. Not saying this is fact, but manupulation of news is the sort of thing SCL does. Al-Jazzera fakes stuff all the time.

I have been a part of this war since 9/11. I have no doubt 100% that the information was true. I can't explain why or how I know this (I am sure you can understand why), but He was a very important part of their recruitment in the United States. I understand and agree that the news has a way to put a twist on things like this, but again you and the rest of America are not in a position to know all of the information that decisions are based off of. However, I will say that it is still unconstitutional to kill an American without due process and if they wish to revise the Constitution then that's fine but it has to go through the process and be ratified.

[E4 No More]

The heard can't read or understand the Constitution of the United States of America.

It's not that I don't think I could die or be killed. It's that I aint scared and won't to piss on the Constitution.

If ifs and buts were cherries and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas.

Over the last 10 years an average of 35k people have died a year in auto accidents. over 400k since 2001. Where is the war on cars?

Obviously we've digressed into thoughtless anologies now, so I'm out. You will not change my opinion that the subject in question made a conscious decision to renounce his citizenship AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED and turned on his country and declared war upon it by joining forces with a group of people who declared war upon us: therefore, he was an enemy of the state unprotected by the Constitution and thus a valid military target...period.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Obviously we've digressed into thoughtless anologies now, so I'm out. You will not change my opinion that the subject in question made a conscious decision to renounce his citizenship AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED and turned on his country and declared war upon it by joining forces with a group of people who declared war upon us: therefore, he was an enemy of the state unprotected by the Constitution and thus a valid military target...period.

This Government just need to legally stipulate that in a Constitutional amendment and this argument is moot. I agree that he deserved to Die, I just question the legality in it. Ultimately, it is our government that is asked to protect us. This just opens a legal can of worms that needs to be addressed by this administration.

[sigmtnman]

I have been a part of this war since 9/11. I have no doubt 100% that the information was true. I can't explain why or how I know this (I am sure you can understand why), but He was a very important part of their recruitment in the United States. I understand and agree that the news has a way to put a twist on things like this, but again you and the rest of America are not in a position to know all of the information that decisions are based off of. However, I will say that it is still unconstitutional to kill an American without due process and if they wish to revise the Constitution then that's fine but it has to go through the process and be ratified.

Secrecy is not what Due Process is about.

If they were positive, there should have been a rendition to assure it was actually the desired target and evidence presented to satisfy Americans that Due Process was followed. Without those things we are left with nothing but secrecy and allegations.

[sigmtnman]

Obviously we've digressed into thoughtless anologies now, so I'm out. You will not change my opinion that the subject in question made a conscious decision to renounce his citizenship AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED and turned on his country and declared war upon it by joining forces with a group of people who declared war upon us: therefore, he was an enemy of the state unprotected by the Constitution and thus a valid military target...period.

It's not a thoughtless analogy. You have repeatedly implied that either, we don't realize that we could be targets or that we are not being forthcoming. I am stating that there should be a greater concern for higher probability events. Since we are not, it shows the fallacy of concern.

[E4 No More]

This Government just need to legally stipulate that in a Constitutional amendment and this argument is moot. I agree that he deserved to Die, I just question the legality in it. Ultimately, it is our government that is asked to protect us. This just opens a legal can of worms that needs to be addressed by this administration.

I agree that it's outside the law as it is currently written: however, I don't see the 500+ retards in Washington and the X-number in the individual states actually addressing this: otherwise, it would have been done by now.

[sigmtnman]

But you trust those 500+ retards to decide in private who to kill without due process. LOL

Why do we have so many scared adults in America?

If we are at war with those countries, declare it already and turn em to glass. Then we can declare this 10 year undeclared "war on terror" a victory and get back not being a bunch of scared people willing to trade the Constitution for a bit of false safety.

Edited October 6, 2011 by sigmtnman

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Secrecy is not what Due Process is about.

If they were positive, there should have been a rendition to assure it was actually the desired target and evidence presented to satisfy Americans that Due Process was followed. Without those things we are left with nothing but secrecy and allegations.

Wow you are on a rant and not reading what I am writing. I agree that Due Process was not follow. I agree that targeting an American is unconstitutional and if they want to they need to make amendments. That is where it concerns All Americans.

The reason they killed him was blanketed by State Security Secrets (however, illegally) and no justification should be given to the American population. That's why we vote for a President....to make those choices as the Commander in Chief.

If you are truly unhappy do what I did and take the time to write your congressman and ask for an explanation as to why we are targeting Americans with out Due Process and ask that the guidelines for this be amended in the Constitution. That is who you need to argue with not us in here most of which agree with you but you won't listen to that.

[daddyo]

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.

Doesn't say "citizens."

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Doesn't say "citizen."

[Guest adamoxtwo]

But you trust those 500+ retards to decide in private who to kill without due process. LOL

Why do we have so many scared adults in America?

If we are at war with those countries. Declare it already and turn em to glass. Then we can declare this 10 year war a victory and get back not being a bunch of scared people willing to trade the Constitution for a bit of false safety.

Because you can only declare war against a country and the war on terrorism is not a war against a country it a war against an Group and their Ideology which has vowed to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews at any and all cost.

[sigmtnman]

Wow you are on a rant and not reading what I am writing. I agree that Due Process was not follow. I agree that targeting an American is unconstitutional and if they want to they need to make amendments. That is where it concerns All Americans.

The reason they killed him was blanketed by State Security Secrets (however, illegally) and no justification should be given to the American population. That's why we vote for a President....to make those choices as the Commander in Chief.

If you are truly unhappy do what I did and take the time to write your congressman and ask for an explanation as to why we are targeting Americans with out Due Process and ask that the guidelines for this be amended in the Constitution. That is who you need to argue with not us in here most of which agree with you but you won't listen to that.

Perception is reality. It would appear you are not reading what I am writing.

The president has no right to assassinate a citizen. The Constitution has specifics for handling Treason. We are not at war with Yemen, therefor the war argument is null and void. Justification is given by Due Process. Secret evidence and no-trial /or no satisfaction of treason per the Constitution is not Due Process.

[sigmtnman]

Because you can only declare war against a country and the war on terrorism is not a war against a country it a war against an Group and their Ideology which has vowed to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews at any and all cost.

If all of those countries are harboring terrorists why can't we declare war on them?

I am curious what group we declared war on? Would this be the white, middle class folks I see in the DHS videos?

[Defender]

I'm all for killing terrorists...but...I'm a little concerned about who gets to decide who is a terrorist, and why...especially when those "terrorists" are American citizens. 'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, nor a tinfoil hat wearer, but I keep remembering reading about how in the 30's and 40's the Nazis were killing "terrorists" and I wonder if that could happen here...

[G27]

It's not an "it's for the children" plea; it's about the hypocrisy of the point some are making here. It's like a herd mentality. They think it'll never happen to them; just to someone else: therefore, they trivialize the point with snide comments like comparing it to "It's for the children" because they consider it so unlikely to actually happen to them. That's all well and good until the lion has you by the throat. Then it is real.

Fascinating - everything you wrote is exactly how I view those who would toss aside the Constitution for pragmatism.

You're the one who tried to tug emotional strings.

So this clown was involved with the failed underwear bomber. Consider this: if the underwear bomb had gone off and your loved one was on that plane and died; this a-hat was hiding in a country that would not capture/extradite him to the US to stand trial; the country would not allow our government to capture and take him to stand trial; the a-hat continued to kill many more innocent Americans, would you be okay with the extremely unlikely hope that one day, just maybe, the a-hat would slip up and get captured to stand trial but likely would die of old age?

In answer to your question, we could simply go get him - remember Pakistan?

But it's easier to just kill designated 'enemies of the state' than to follow the Constitution.

I believe in principle above pragmatism.

[G27]

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' - Yahoo! News

[TMF]

If we are not under immediate attack, then yes. They delineate to get the public to go along with it. The war on terror, is the largest industry in America. It is a money maker too, plain and simple.

Hitler would have stood trial, just like the majority of other high value targets. The hague ring a bell? Isreal did so with Adolf Eichmann.

Some guys in a truck, in a country we are not at war with? They must have some long range missiles to get us from there.

Assuming this guy is who the .gov says, how do we even know it was really him in the truck? Why not rendition him and make sure? Heck for all we know it was another bearded camel jockey who looked like him.

Once again, you don't get how war works. My analogy of Hitler was stating that at any time we can drop a bomb on him. We don't have to try him in court unless he surrenders. Those are the rules of war. Awlaki could have been nothing more than the guy who changes tires on Al Qaeda trucks, but this makes him part of the enemy war machine.

You don't have to be actively engaged by the enemy in order to kill him. The only time it is not okay to kill enemy is if they surrender.

[TMF]

Then why don't we just go into the hood and declare open season on bangers? After all, they may kill one of your loved ones some day.

Because we are in America.

[sigmtnman]

Once again, you don't get how war works. My analogy of Hitler was stating that at any time we can drop a bomb on him. We don't have to try him in court unless he surrenders. Those are the rules of war. Awlaki could have been nothing more than the guy who changes tires on Al Qaeda trucks, but this makes him part of the enemy war machine.

You don't have to be actively engaged by the enemy in order to kill him. The only time it is not okay to kill enemy is if they surrender.

Actually, I do get how war works and what you are saying about war.

That's why I keep asking for clarification on the declaration of war and which countries we are at war with, per the declaration.

[sigmtnman]

Because we are in America.

If awlaki was in the US, would your opinion of the action change?

[TMF]

It's not as if I don't understand what many of you are saying; yes I'm a firm believer in the Constitution and believe that we need to keep the government in check to ensure it isn't violated no matter how much we would like to see certain people hanging from a tree. I am trying to explain why this isn't one of those times, and have brought up very good points that are ignored.

Pretty much there are to possible scenarios here:

1. Awlaki was killed because he was a wanted terrorist. If this is the reason he was blown up then I completely agree that our government clearly violated our Constitution.

2. Awlaki was killed because he was a member of a paramilitary organization at war with us. In this scenario it was acceptable for our armed forces to kill him. There was already a precedent set for this in WWII and many, many times over in our Civil War.

It is my opinion that scenario #2 is the reality; but that is my opinion. If it is the opinion of others that it is scenario #1 then that's fine. If it comes out in the wash that scenario #1 is what happened then I'll be the first to jump on y'all's bandwagon, but I always tend to lean towards what is self evident and obvious, which is why I believe in scenario #2.

Edited October 6, 2011 by TMF 18B

[sigmtnman]

It's not as if I don't understand what many of you are saying; yes I'm a firm believer in the Constitution and believe that we need to keep the government in check to ensure it isn't violated no matter how much we would like to see certain people hanging from a tree. I am trying to explain why this isn't one of those times, and have brought up very good points that are ignored.

Pretty much there are to possible scenarios here:

1. Awlaki was killed because he was a wanted terrorist. If this is the reason he was blown up then I completely agree that our government clearly violated our Constitution.

2. Awlaki was killed because he was a member of a paramilitary organization at war with us. In this scenario it was acceptable for our armed forces to kill him. There was already a precedent set for this in WWII and many, many times over in our Civil War.

It is my opinion that scenario #2 is the reality; but that is my opinion. If it is the opinion of others that it is scenario #1 then that's fine. If it comes out in the wash that scenario #1 is what happened then I'll be the first to jump on y'all's bandwagon, but I always tend to lean towards what is self evident and obvious, which is why I believe in scenario #2.

Likewise.

Other than referring to the war between the states as a Civil War, if #2 were the scenario, I would agree even though I still have misgivings about the nebulous nature of a group of people instead of a political state. A group of people without a nationality is generaly referred to as pirates or merely criminals and it's difficult to declare war against said groups with no defined end.

[TMF]

. A group of people without a nationality is generaly referred to as pirates or merely criminals and it's difficult to declare war against said groups with no defined end.

Well yes, it is difficult. Weaponized Islamofacism as a franchise is a new threat that is somewhat unprecedented and no one has a good answer to stop it. We've been at this for a while now and I don't believe we're any closer to a permanent solution. I don't believe there even is one. My opinion has always been limited ground troops in an advisory role to direct indigenous forces to do our dirty work, aggressive intelligence collection efforts in countries of interest and use of air strikes (drone/tomahawk/B1) to target HVTs and large concentrations of enemy. This is something that will go on for a very long time, and we can't stop going after them until they stop going after us.