The Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
(Christine, this isn’t necessarily directed at you, but the quote was small)

This isn’t a “Left” or “Right” issue. This is an issue of law and precedent IMO. I don’t know what the right answer is.

Was this guy a terrorist? No doubt. Was he an American citizen. Yeah.

At best it makes it “awkward”.

Ron Paul is consistent. The “Left” thinks he’s Right. The Right thinks he’s Left. That’s OK.

(L)ibertarians also don’t condone the “War on Drugs”, either. The “Left” largely doesn’t blink over legalized pot, the “Right” has a hissy-fit. Ditto some First Amendment issues-- think “Flag Burning” where “the Right” is off their rocker.

If Ron Paul wanted to spend Trillions on Welfare, he’d be a posterboy for the “Left”. The only thing that makes him “Right” is adherence to Constitution and fiscal responsibility. Both the Left and Right hate libertarians for that. Rep’s and Dem’s are the Parties of Big Nanny Government.

At first glance, I think his comments about this terrorist are spot on. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t happy this guy is dead, but there’s also a part of me saying “Well, what if ‘terrorist’ comes to be defined as someone who says ‘Fuck’ a lot-- now I’m a terrorist-- fire at will”.

Like many of Paul’s comments, they don’t translate well into soundbites and snippets (think his comments at the recent debate). They usually require a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. I don’t give a lot of confidence in much of the electorate and particularly the “party faithful” (of either side) to give such issues much thought behind soundbite.

So, for now-- “Amerrrrica! Fuck Yeah!”[/quote]

In the end, I think this comes down to the fact that this was a very special case. This killing - which is rightful in my opinion - would never have happened on American soil, because we have infinitely more resources here to bring to bear. Al-Awlaki knew he was on the kill list, and I think that he made the fatal mistake of assuming he was somewhat shielded by his citizenship. Had he gotten on an airplane that landed on US soil, I’m sure he would have been detained at the gate. Instead we extended our reach via high explosives. If anything I think the precedent this sets is that if you prove yourself an enemy of high value, we will wage war on you, no matter who you are.
[/quote]

Borrekk - I agree with your statement. Like I said, I think at best it was right, but awkward, and a slippery slope.

At some point your actions elevate you from ‘common citizen’ to ‘high value asset’ (like high ranking terrorist leader, spy, etc.) and the rules are, uh, ‘flexible’ for lack of a better term (maybe “open to interpretation”)…

62

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Why dont they just deport all immigrants already? Legal or not.[/quote]

Anders Berhing Breivik is that you Lol

( For you who dont know, Anders B Breivik is the fucker who killed alot of
kids in norway this summer. And actually relevant to the topic: Even though he is a
terrorist scumfuck, he where not killed on the spot, he are getting a trial. And I think thats how it should be ).

ps.
For a forum where people on a regular basis scream out “the rule of law” and the danger of government, I am supprised that so few are not supporting orion on this.

[/quote]

Al-Awlaki and Breivik are not not identical cases so your comparison is badly flawed. Breivik was taken prisoner and will get a trial because he surrendered and didn’t try to fight the SWAT team.

A more realistic example of what we can expect from Al-Qaeda was provided by the members of the terror cell that blew up Atocha station in Madrid. When they were surrounded by police and their apartment was being stormed by a SWAT team they blew themselves up, killing one policeman.

It is easy to say how they should take people prisoner when you aren’t the one who has to risk his life trying to capture these people. That’s because talk is cheap.

63

[quote]Sifu wrote:
… That’s because talk is cheap.

[/quote]

And the cheapest talk comes from florelius.

64

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
… That’s because talk is cheap.

[/quote]

And the cheapest talk comes from florelius. [/quote]

I have a hater now, thats cool I guess :wink:

65

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
… That’s because talk is cheap.

[/quote]

And the cheapest talk comes from florelius. [/quote]

I have a hater now, thats cool I guess ;)[/quote]

You misunderstand me. You are too bland to inspire an emotion as strong as hatred. You are milk toast.

66

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
… That’s because talk is cheap.

[/quote]

And the cheapest talk comes from florelius. [/quote]

I have a hater now, thats cool I guess ;)[/quote]

You misunderstand me. You are too bland to inspire an emotion as strong as hatred. You are milk toast. [/quote]

I havent tried milk toast, so dont really know what you mean by that, but I understand its not positiv if you think that the cheapest talk off all the posters here comes from me + I am bland. Maybe not hate, but it aint love either.

ps. Whats more interresting is your avatar. Is it a picture from a Elsa Beskow book?

67

[quote]florelius wrote:

ps. Whats more interresting is your avatar. Is it a picture from a Elsa Beskow book?
[/quote]

Maurice Sendak, Where The Wild Things Are.

68

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

ps. Whats more interresting is your avatar. Is it a picture from a Elsa Beskow book?
[/quote]

Maurice Sendak, Where The Wild Things Are.[/quote]

Then I learned something today too.

69

[quote]orion wrote:

Not the United State of America, America, the idea, the ideal.

The shining city on the hill.

Shame on you.
[/quote]

WTF are you talking about orion? America IS the union. If you’re against the union you’re against America. I thought this was all sorted out in the 1860’s.

70

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
… That’s because talk is cheap.

[/quote]

And the cheapest talk comes from florelius. [/quote]

I have a hater now, thats cool I guess ;)[/quote]

LOL…I have an army of them. Keep in mind though that those who stand for nothing never have any haters. My haters can kiss my ass except for forlife he’d enjoy it :slight_smile:

71

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Orion you are on the lunatic fringe, again. How can you argue that they did not apply the rule of law? Al-Awlaki knew that he was a wanted man. The proper legal process to get a trial (which you are whining about him not getting) is one contacts their lawyer, who will then contact the authorities and arrange a surrender. Then after one surrenders, they get a trial. You see it’s really simple and easy.

Al-Awlaki chose not to surrender and go through the legal process. He chose to be a desperado on the run. He chose to incite others to commit murder which made him dangerous. It was his choice to live and die the way he did.

A consistent theme in your posts is that you cannot seem to accept that people who do bad things are asking to suffer bad consequences. You expect people to risk their lives and other peoples lives playing games with people who are dangerous. People are not going to take you seriously until you are realistic in your expectations.

[/quote]

Spot on, great to see u around the boards, keep posting if u see the need.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you. Sifu is a great poster. What we really need around here are more foreign born atheists who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground about the US or much of anything else.

Of course I’m kidding good to see you Sifu! We have enough of the others.

72

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Orion you are on the lunatic fringe, again. How can you argue that they did not apply the rule of law? Al-Awlaki knew that he was a wanted man. The proper legal process to get a trial (which you are whining about him not getting) is one contacts their lawyer, who will then contact the authorities and arrange a surrender. Then after one surrenders, they get a trial. You see it’s really simple and easy.

Al-Awlaki chose not to surrender and go through the legal process. He chose to be a desperado on the run. He chose to incite others to commit murder which made him dangerous. It was his choice to live and die the way he did.

A consistent theme in your posts is that you cannot seem to accept that people who do bad things are asking to suffer bad consequences. You expect people to risk their lives and other peoples lives playing games with people who are dangerous. People are not going to take you seriously until you are realistic in your expectations.

[/quote]

Spot on, great to see u around the boards, keep posting if u see the need.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you. Sifu is a great poster. What we really need around here are more foreign born atheists who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground about the US or much of anything else.

Of course I’m kidding good to see you Sifu! We have enough of the others.[/quote]

73

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

Ron Paul is consistent. The “Left” thinks he’s Right. The Right thinks he’s Left. That’s OK.

[/quote]

Actually no, he’s not consistent.

As I keep showing, Ron Paul cynically ABUSES the constitution. He shits all over the constitution and the founding fathers. For example, his campaign to ‘end the fed’. By sponsoring legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Ron Paul is in direct opposition to Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and the USSC rulings on implied powers.

“When Hamilton introduced his bill to establish a national bank…(he) contended that, because of necessary detail, a vast body of powers had to be implied by general clauses, and one of these authorized Congress to ‘make all laws which shall be necessary and proper’ for carrying out other powers specifically granted. The constitution authorized the national government to levy and collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money. A national bank would materially help in performing these functions efficiently. Congress, therefore, was entitled, under its implied powers, to create such a bank. Washington and the Congress accepted Hamilton’s view, thus establishing a precedent” - Dr Wood Gray, Professor of American History, The George Washington University

[quote]
Like many of Paul’s comments, they don’t translate well into soundbites and snippets (think his comments at the recent debate). They usually require a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.[/quote]

Actually EVERY Ron Paul supporter I have ever debated has shown themselves to be completely ignorant of the constitution and US history.

74

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

As I keep showing, Ron Paul cynically ABUSES the constitution. He shits all over the constitution and the founding fathers.

[/quote]

OK, show me where the Constitution requires the Fed.

Also, are you implying the “The Founding Fathers” never disagreed (that is to say 'its wrong to disagree with ‘a founding father’)? Thomas Jefferson (you know, a FOUNDING FATHER) also opposed many of Hamilton’s views of the role of government. As did a whole host of other “Founding Fathers”.

RP’s views on the Fed are not unconstitutional.

[quote]
Actually EVERY Ron Paul supporter I have ever debated has shown themselves to be completely ignorant of the constitution and US history.[/quote]

I think you take yourself way too seriously.

75

I have to agree with sifu on this one. (another evidence that the apocalypse is coming soon).

Killing him actually saved many lives.
both american and yemeni lives.

He was hiding among the Awlaki Tribe. Ie : his own tribe.
They made it pretty clear that they would give their lives to defend him.
Not even for religious reasons, but for tribal ones.

a predator drone was by far the best way to get him.

76

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Not the United State of America, America, the idea, the ideal.

The shining city on the hill.

Shame on you.
[/quote]

WTF are you talking about orion? America IS the union. If you’re against the union you’re against America. I thought this was all sorted out in the 1860’s.[/quote]

Could you find a facepalm.jpg for me?

To think that your ancestors were convicted criminals, and then, you got all servile and submitting to “authoritay”…

What happened, mate?

77

[quote]florelius wrote:

ps.
For a forum where people on a regular basis scream out “the rule of law” and the danger of government, I am supprised that so few are not supporting orion on this.

[/quote]

Why?

I posted before that an American conservative is someone who seriously believes that the same degenerate motherfuckers who fuck it up BIG time domestically are somehow benevolent, omniscient angels when it comes to foreign or security policies.

In other words, conservatives are not quite the prissy, inexperienced virgins that liberals seem to be, but from a libertarian point of view, they might as well be…

Even though I will admit that it is quite entertaining if they lecture us on our “cultish” behavior while their Dear Leaders jizzm still dribbles from their mouths.

78

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Not the United State of America, America, the idea, the ideal.

The shining city on the hill.

Shame on you.
[/quote]

WTF are you talking about orion? America IS the union. If you’re against the union you’re against America. I thought this was all sorted out in the 1860’s.[/quote]

Could you find a facepalm.jpg for me?

To think that your ancestors were convicted criminals, and then, you got all servile and submitting to “authoritay”…

What happened, mate?[/quote]

Actually I’m not big on ‘submitting’ - I know it’s the Austrian way(Anschluss) but anyone who tries to invade my country or make me pay the Jizya is going to bleed I can assure you.

79

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

As I keep showing, Ron Paul cynically ABUSES the constitution. He shits all over the constitution and the founding fathers.

[/quote]

OK, show me where the Constitution requires the Fed.

Also, are you implying the “The Founding Fathers” never disagreed (that is to say 'its wrong to disagree with ‘a founding father’)? Thomas Jefferson (you know, a FOUNDING FATHER) also opposed many of Hamilton’s views of the role of government. As did a whole host of other “Founding Fathers”.

RP’s views on the Fed are not unconstitutional.

[quote]
Actually EVERY Ron Paul supporter I have ever debated has shown themselves to be completely ignorant of the constitution and US history.[/quote]

I think you take yourself way too seriously.[/quote]

No I’m not implying that. And yes you are correct - Jefferson’s(and Madison) and Hamilton’s(and John Adams) disagreements led to the first party system. And I didn’t actually claim Ron Paul’s views on the Fed are ‘unconstitutional.’ His ‘kill the Fed’ nonsense is just a modern rendition of Andrew Jackson’s idiotic ‘kill the (2nd National) bank’ nonsense.

80

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

As I keep showing, Ron Paul cynically ABUSES the constitution. He shits all over the constitution and the founding fathers.

[/quote]

OK, show me where the Constitution requires the Fed.

Also, are you implying the “The Founding Fathers” never disagreed (that is to say 'its wrong to disagree with ‘a founding father’)? Thomas Jefferson (you know, a FOUNDING FATHER) also opposed many of Hamilton’s views of the role of government. As did a whole host of other “Founding Fathers”.

RP’s views on the Fed are not unconstitutional.

[quote]
Actually EVERY Ron Paul supporter I have ever debated has shown themselves to be completely ignorant of the constitution and US history.[/quote]

I think you take yourself way too seriously.[/quote]

No I’m not implying that. And yes you are correct - Jefferson’s(and Madison) and Hamilton’s(and John Adams) disagreements led to the first party system. And I didn’t actually claim Ron Paul’s views on the Fed are ‘unconstitutional.’ His ‘kill the Fed’ nonsense is just a modern rendition of Andrew Jackson’s idiotic ‘kill the (2nd National) bank’ nonsense.[/quote]

If you’re not implying that, then I’m not sure how you can substantiate your claim that RP is “abusing the constitution”. I haven’t read any of your other posts, but you claim that you ‘keep showing’ that he does so-- that sounds dubious to me at best since working within Constitutional means to try to repeal laws is quite… Constitutional. Happens all the time.

How is working to repeal something ‘abusing the Constitution’? How is holding government and its actions accountable to it powers granted by the Constitution abusing the Constitution.

More on topic, the man feels the government’s actions against this terrorist were an abuse of power and perhaps against the law. How is that ‘abusing the Constitution’?

I like RP, but I don’t agree with everything he says. As I wrote earlier, I think the world is better off without the terrorist. However, I would like to be assured that the government acted within its rights. It’s not clear from any source that this was cut and dry and the basis in law has not been made public. Why should the basis in law be confidential? No one is asking for intelligence secrets, just basis in law. That’s all RP is asking for.