The Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

It’s kind of pathetic that some people criticise Orion for events he was never involved in

[/quote]

Maybe it’s something to do with the fact that he posts comments like the one above in which he suggests that the TSA searching procedures in the US are likely to lead to a form of society resembling Nazi Germany. Maybe that’s why this particular Austrian gets those sort of replies.
[/quote]

Likely do lead?

Darling, it is no longer Munich 1923, it is Berlin, 1936.

22

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am pretty sure that I could find one or the other Jew who said something or other.

[/quote]

priceless

Actually no, that’s nonsense. The constitution grants the executive the power to wage war and make treaties. “Enemy combatants” get snuffed. It’s constitutional.

No, due to 17,807 documented Islamic terrorist attacks carried out since 9/11. There’s no secret about why we need to snuff the Islamic fundamentalist leaders. Want some links to some gory pictures?

[quote]
The fact that this is not immediately met with public outrage but actually cheered on by parts of the public is a sign of what a bunch of pussies the American public is made of, as if we needed more proof after the TSA, if you let high school dropouts fondle your daughter because they have a government issued costume, well…

You want to know why Nazi Germany could happen?

Look in the mirror, it is not much more complicated than that.[/quote]

Priceless. An Austrian who instructs the world on why WWII happened.[/quote]

Could you refrain from commenting on the American constitution.

Cause you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you.

23

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ - @Bambi: He’s right. And take a look at the ‘Gay adoption’ thread. Orion brought up the Nazis and compared them to people who question gay adoption. [/quote]

No, I claimed that once we adopt your mindset that “we” are “responsible” for “the children” we might as well go all the way.

You repeatedly argue like an statist utilitarian, and the Nazis are not an aberration when it comes to statist utilitarianism, they are the logical endpoint if you want to stay consistent.

Now, you can read up on average utilitarianism and the interesting logical steps that lead from “yay, let us do good for the masses” to cold deliberate slaughter or you can add that to the list of things you have never heard of, but you not understanding does not make me wrong, it just reveals your ignorance.

24

[quote]orion wrote:

Could you refrain from commenting on the American constitution.

[/quote]

No.

[quote]

Cause you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you. [/quote]

Wage war; not ‘declare war.’ Here:

“The Constitution’s division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of “twilight zone” of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important–in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.”

War and Treaty Powers of the United States Constitution:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

25

[quote]borrek wrote:

Does this set a precedent…[/quote]

No. Precedent already set and upheld by unanimous USSC ruling Ex parte Quirin - two US citizens executed without civilian trial.

26

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

2008 video from Anwar called for muslims around the world to ‘‘kill americans without hesitation’’.

Bravo Zulu, job well done.

[/quote]

Absolutely. One down, and an editor of al Qaeda’s magazine Inspire is apprent;ly dead now too.

Two down - a whole bunch to go.

27

I will once again give President Obama credit (as I did when he took out Osama) for killing Anwar al-Awlaki. I will also add that Obama is proving himself to not be nearly as bad a foreign policy leader as he is a domestic leader.

As to the nonsense regarding Awlaki being a US citizen, so what? As soon as a US citizen joins our enemies (especially at that level) and begins to plot against the very country that he was born in at that exact time there should be a target placed right over his face.

The foreign posters and far left wing nuts who are trying to make a case regarding his citizenship can forget about it. This is no precedent. In fact gangsters and thugs have been killed by police in the past, shot on sight. John Dillinger is only one example there are many more. Bad guys who kill deserve the fate that they created by first taking a life regardless of what country they’re from, and historically this has been our (unwritten) policy for decades.

The killing of this one man may have saved countless military and perhaps civilian lives as well. Let the word go out far and wide, if you screw with the USA you will eventually pay the price!

Better those bleeding hearts spend some time meditating on 9-11 and the innocent civilians killed in the Tiwn Towers than pine away regarding the rights of a dead blood thirsty scum bag like Anwar al-Awlaki.

28

^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

It is Roh Paul’s latest talking point.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-us-born-al-qaida-cleric-assassinated-143621437.html

29

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.

30

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Could you refrain from commenting on the American constitution.

[/quote]

No.

[quote]

Cause you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you. [/quote]

Wage war; not ‘declare war.’ Here:

“The Constitution’s division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of “twilight zone” of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important–in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.”

War and Treaty Powers of the United States Constitution:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm[/quote]

And they have declared war when exactly?

What nation do they war on?

They war on “terror” is as much a war as the “war on drugs” i.e. no war at all.

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.
[/quote]

And its a disgrace.

If the point is reached where cheering for your team is more important than the rule of law or the republic everyone is fucked.

Alright, your team may win if you do that, it may even play in the ruins that you won all by itself…

That is shameful, no matter what political affiliation you have.

32

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

It is Roh Paul’s latest talking point.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-us-born-al-qaida-cleric-assassinated-143621437.html[/quote]

The funny thing is that I know that Ron Pauls “talking points” almost before he does.

It is almost as if you you could deduct his stance on issues if you knew his principles.

Eery, I know.

Conveniently enough, you can read his stance on the limits of executive power right here:

33

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

It is Roh Paul’s latest talking point.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-us-born-al-qaida-cleric-assassinated-143621437.html[/quote]

The funny thing is that I know that Ron Pauls “talking points” almost before he does.

It is almost as if you you could deduct his stance on issues if you knew his principles.

Eery, I know.

Conveniently enough, you can read his stance on the limits of executive power right here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[/quote]

I understand why Paul would think this way. I was more or less pointing out that it isn’t only “left wing nuts” who disapprove of the way this was done.

For the record, I’m okay with this action.

34

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.
[/quote]

And its a disgrace.

If the point is reached where cheering for your team is more important than the rule of law or the republic everyone is fucked.

Alright, your team may win if you do that, it may even play in the ruins that you won all by itself…

That is shameful, no matter what political affiliation you have. [/quote]

I agree that it is a disgrace, but at the same time I am surprised there are not more right wingers who are falling in line with Paul on this one.

35

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.
[/quote]

And its a disgrace.

If the point is reached where cheering for your team is more important than the rule of law or the republic everyone is fucked.

Alright, your team may win if you do that, it may even play in the ruins that you won all by itself…

That is shameful, no matter what political affiliation you have. [/quote]

There is nothing shameful about killing a leader of the enemy who we are actively at war with, and they with us. I mean we all know the bunker of some German-American turned Hitler’s little officer would’ve been off limits.

And, the rule of law wasn’t broken. We are actively engaged in a war with the enemy, and they with us. Hostilities haven’t ceased, and he never surrendered himself to any authorities. He was a legitimate, self-declared, target continuously engaged in the war. Their positions within Al Qaeda made them imminent threats, shielded in Yemen against law enforcement, subject only to military action.

36

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.
[/quote]

And its a disgrace.

If the point is reached where cheering for your team is more important than the rule of law or the republic everyone is fucked.

Alright, your team may win if you do that, it may even play in the ruins that you won all by itself…

That is shameful, no matter what political affiliation you have. [/quote]

I agree that it is a disgrace, but at the same time I am surprised there are not more right wingers who are falling in line with Paul on this one.[/quote]

The same right wingers that passed the Patriot act?

The same tea partiers that immediately caved in when it came to renew it?

The guys who retroactively pardoned phone companies when they went along with illegal wiretaps?

Those “right wingers” ?

Fuck them, Washington would rip out their jugular with his wooden dentures.

Even Hamilton would sodomize them with his musket.

37

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.
[/quote]

And its a disgrace.

If the point is reached where cheering for your team is more important than the rule of law or the republic everyone is fucked.

Alright, your team may win if you do that, it may even play in the ruins that you won all by itself…

That is shameful, no matter what political affiliation you have. [/quote]

I agree that it is a disgrace, but at the same time I am surprised there are not more right wingers who are falling in line with Paul on this one.[/quote]

You got us all wrong Christine we right wingers love it when enemies of the USA die. :slight_smile:

38

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.
[/quote]

BIGNO! If Bush had done something like this some on the far left would have moved for his impeachment.

39

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

2008 video from Anwar called for muslims around the world to ‘‘kill americans without hesitation’’.

Bravo Zulu, job well done.

[/quote]

Wait, werent you the one who insisted that Nazis were kind of bad?

Why?

The dealt with enemies of the people quite swiftly and decisively!

I guess they were not all bad, huh?[/quote]

Gee Whiz u again, you haven’t been attending your psychotherapy sessions have you, naughty you.

Not all Germans were Nazis, there were Germans who served with honour and bravery.

Further to r question, i cannot recall the jews of Europe calling to kill Germans without hesitation prior to kick off.

Please attend your future sessions, u know u will thank me in the long run.[/quote]
Nazis did not want to kill jews, at least initially. They wanted to evict them somewhere else and this is common and public knowledge. At some point they decided that the eviction thing is not going to work (or some of them did) and what happened then is hotly debated. Obviously jews were killed but nobody knows how many. Soon after, America intentionally moved and starved a few million germans to death (who must have been civilian as there was no war going on) as a written policy. This number may be comparable to the number of jews killed by nazis.

Either way, people are cattle’ish everywhere and another guy’s war hero is a neutral observer’s murderer. Obviously every german who was forced to fight for Germany’s ends was a nazi and the country was called Nazi-Germany (doh). They were killers and so was everybody else who was sicced to kill those nazis. We, collectively, are all evil nachos. When people talk about evil nachos, they might as well say ‘evil germans’ (as Hollywood wants them to do) because germans were, by definition, nazis. Just like russians were communists by definition and communists killed a lot more people. Communism threatened everyone who was not a communist (like radical islam threatens non-muslims) but nazism (as a racial ideology) threatened only small minorities of people.

40

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
^
It is not really the left wing nuts who have a problem with this.

[/quote]

That’s because Bush is out of office.
[/quote]

And its a disgrace.

If the point is reached where cheering for your team is more important than the rule of law or the republic everyone is fucked.

Alright, your team may win if you do that, it may even play in the ruins that you won all by itself…

That is shameful, no matter what political affiliation you have. [/quote]

There is nothing shameful about killing a leader of the enemy who we are actively at war with, and they with us. I mean we all know the bunker of some German-American turned Hitler’s little officer would’ve been off limits.

And, the rule of law wasn’t broken. We are actively engaged in a war with the enemy, and they with us. Hostilities haven’t ceased, and he never surrendered himself to any authorities. He was a legitimate, self-declared, target continuously engaged in the war. Their positions within Al Qaeda made them imminent threats, shielded in Yemen against law enforcement, subject only to military action.
[/quote]

What is shameful is to completely throw your principles over board when your side is in power.

Also, there was no declaration of war, you cannot declare a war on a political strategy and even if you could, whom would you send it to?

“War” actually means something and it was for very good reasons that the power of declaring war lies with Congress, a relatively large deliberative body and not with the president who is just one person and has the overwhelming incentive to declare a little war just so that he can strut around as a war time president.

Timothy Mc Veigh, without any doubt a terrorist, was searched, found, prosecuted, convicted and executed.

That is how you deal with terrorists, not with tearing down the last vestiges of the old republic.