The Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]orion wrote:

Just so you know, the Bill of Rights does not apply to anyone but one entity alone, the federal governments of the United States.

[/quote]

They are restrictions on the federal government designed for the purpose of guaranteeing certain rights for the people. Let’s not play semantic games.

It does and it has been yes.

No.

It’s not a “little word game” it’s a fact. Al-Awlaki was involved in plotting and carrying out acts of belligerence against the US government, US servicemen and women and US civilians. He was also plotting and urging the overthrow of the US government. You’re the one playing word games as usual.

102

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

^^Read the constitution. Presidential emergency powers.[/quote]

Could you point out where you find that in the US constitution?

Because the Austrian president actually has emergency powers and they are not “implied” or need to be interpreted into the constitution, I can easily show you where they are.

Should be easy to do the same with the US constitution. [/quote]

See the little arrows pointing to the funny card? It’s called ‘a joke’. I was suggesting that the writing on the card was a clause from the constitution.

103

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“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.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden. [/quote]

Which part of “except in cases arising…in time of War or public danger” do you not understand?

Does ex parte Quirin apply? If so, was there a military tribunal?
Was Anwar armed against the US? Did he make himself a legitimate military target by directing military actions? if so, Quirin need not be applied, there is no habeas, no indictment, and there is no hand-wringing about misinterpreted Constitutional rights.

[/quote]

Which part of, there is no war unless declared by congress and this guys posed no immediate danger whatsoever and it is doubtful that he was anything more than a loudmouth do you not understand?

edit: Because, it could very well be that this guy was killed for what he said, problem is he is actually allowed to say whatever he wants. [/quote]

Dickhead, read the link of mine in the reply to SteelyD - It covers all this. The US has only ever declared war five times in over 100 conflicts. The process of ‘declaring war’ is only a diplomatic courtesy between states and there is no constitutional requirement to declare war; nor any moral requirement when you are dealing with people like al-Qaeda. In fact I don’t think al-Qaeda even has an embassy or ambassador in the US.

104

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
NavJoe, by your line of reasoning any foreign enemy force that was at war with the United States would merely have to recruit an American citizen into its ranks in order to prevent a US military operation against the unit that contained the US citizen(s).[/quote]

Not really, because I am assuming that you would declare war, like, send this nation, and that is what it oughta be for a proper “war”, a nice note that you plan on kicking its ass big time and then you shoot anyone who wears their uniform and anyone who does not and still shoots at your troops.

To declare war on a strategy like “terror” and snuff anyone loosely affiliated with anyone you deem to be an enemy in this “war” is beyond ridiculous. [/quote]

Anyone “loosely affiliated” with anyone “deem(ed) to be an enemy”? Awlaki was the head of al-Qaeda operations in Yemen for fuck’s sake. Your trolling is such a bore.

105

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“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.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden. [/quote]

The Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to…[/quote]pretty much anything the overlords decide for us.

106

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s probably not okay for an American president to give orders to assassinate an other American citizen who has not been convicted of any crimes.[/quote]

You think !?!

No worries, we only need to reinterpret…

“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.”…

…to mean the complete opposite of what it says and we are golden. [/quote]

Which part of “except in cases arising…in time of War or public danger” do you not understand?

Does ex parte Quirin apply? If so, was there a military tribunal?
Was Anwar armed against the US? Did he make himself a legitimate military target by directing military actions? if so, Quirin need not be applied, there is no habeas, no indictment, and there is no hand-wringing about misinterpreted Constitutional rights.

[/quote]

Which part of, there is no war unless declared by congress and this guys posed no immediate danger whatsoever and it is doubtful that he was anything more than a loudmouth do you not understand?

edit: Because, it could very well be that this guy was killed for what he said, problem is he is actually allowed to say whatever he wants. [/quote]

The Ahmadinapologist is long on opinion and short on fact, and cannot acknowledge when he is wrong.

“…or public danger.” Do you want a precedent: look up Washington, Whiskey Rebellion. No indictment, no habeas.

Re: the declaration of war, and whether the “victim” was a combatant or philosopher, see SexmMachine, supra.

You have trouble with the War Powers Act? So do I, so do a lot of people, Congress and presidents. Take it to the Supreme Court, because no one else has. Until then, it stands, and however unambiguously you choose to define the state of war, there is no legal challenge to this “war” which has prevailed.

So then, what else do you have? Opinions? Opinions in contravention of fact? (Ya still never acknowledged your denial of the Ahmadinejad Holocaust denial, did ya?)

108

On a related note, a whole squad of Yankees were eliminated tonight :smiley:

109