Reply With Quote
Nobody does. That's beside the point.
In my opinion...
A person still must be tried before a sentence is carried out. However, such declarations he has made, and our approved war on terror by congress, makes him eligible as a military target.
If he was not classed as a military target, then it would be completely against our own laws to assassinate him.
Nobody does. That's beside the point.
Like what?
(crickets)
Look when I posted and compare that to when you posted. My life does not revolve around answering your questions.
The email correspondence with the Ft Hood guy where he gave a basis from the Quran for the attack when he was asking if it was against Islam in and of itself should be enough. Unfortunately they have taken down his website so you cannot see the youtubes where he cites passages from the Quran to justify attacks on America but they are out there as well.
He was the Josef Goebbel's of AQ but the difference was that Goebbel's was not an American citizen. It is a very muddled issue and i can understand why they took the action that they did I just find it reprehensible that they did not even play lip service to the 5th and 6th amendments.
The decision to execute him was made by the US government. Who enforces rule of law? I'll give you a hint: its not the lawbreakers.
You're a ing idiot. This is a stock answer for you and your like. Come and try and make me leave.
Article V was put info a reason and democracy does not mean sucking the status quos .
It wasn't an execution; it was a combat operation that eliminated a terrorist threat.
This is just semantics. Fact is that we ordered a drone to fire on a US citizen. That it was done via the US Army to a particular end is immaterial.
I don't think it's immaterial, at all.
If you were fighting in the trenches of WWI and a Lieutenant from your side of the trenches defected to the other side and started shooting back, would you arrest him or put a bullet in him?
I know what I'd do.
Bad analogy try again.
The analogy would be if you were a WW2 commander and you knew that a nonconvicted US citizen was consorting with the German's and was in a particular situation.
You are presenting an immediate threat to your person. Of course you defend yourself.
I am not even arguing that we should not have gone after him. I am just saying that before the attack was authorized they should have at least extended the right to have him defend himself with a public declaration and then hold a trial for him in absentia.
They are rare but I think in this case it would be justified.
If it was the most immediate way to stop him from "consorting with the German's," I'd kill him.
People like you are the reason we've become the laughingstock of the world.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban will use any trick in the book to kill Americans...you would have us read them their rights on the battlefield.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban decapitate their prisoners and play the videos over the internet...you would whine about them not getting a Koran or being deprived a sign that tells them the way to Mecca.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban would detonate a nuclear weapon in Yankee Stadium, given the chance -- and this scrotum was all about giving them that chance...and you want to, what? Play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules?
I say him; if he wants to play terrorist so bad, let him eat a fire missile or two.
You fail to understand what makes this country great: that we care about rights and the rule of law.
You characterizations of me are baseless and quite frankly dumb. I could care less about them being able to get the Koran or not. I am about as antireligious as you can get. I find using spiritual guesswork as a basis for policymaking to be disgusting.
I also never said to read him his rights but rather make it very obvious and official in outline that he has relinquished his rights because of his traitorous actions and fleeing the country.
It was in Yemen.
We had their intelligence and permission.
It wasn't anything like sending 112 cruise missiles into Libya.
Nuff Said.
Weak. You said there was lots of evidence out there. Guess you were talking out of your hat.
You can't put Americans on death lists and kill them sans due process because of their nutball beliefs. Or now maybe you can. Lame.
So how far down the ladders should we go? For instance, if AQ uses actual torture on their prisoners, what form of slightly-better torture should we use?
At the very least it was conspiracy. He was asked for and gave permission for a terrorist act to the Ft Hood guy. Thats not weak. Sorry but its just not. Charles manson would not be reprehensible otherwise.
Dude was a religious nutball encouraging people to kill amercans where at least in one incident there is a direct link to an act.
i agree with you about due process but its pretty clear what he was culpable of.
That said he should have had the right to defend himself in trial or at least offered the chance for it before the hit was put out on him.
Is that even a crime?
The administration claims he made the leap from advocating terrorism to actively participating.
Either way, I'm okay with his ass being killed.
Odd that you would swallow the Obama Administration's uncorroborated claims, but suit yourself.
It's just that I don't care. I'm glad the er is dead. If Obama needs to claim he was actively involved in terrorism, I'm not going to argue.
Obviously not. There's no further need for any evidence or due process after power tells you it's ok to kill Americans without any evidence or due process.
Alwaki put himself out in video encouraging terrorism. He published the terrorist's magazine for 's sake. The massacre at Fort Hood is directly tied to his relationship with the terrorist that committed the act.
Enough for me.
Expression is cons utionally guaranteed. Even expression that is hateful and twisted.
Then charge him for conspiracy and give him a fair trial like the guy who did it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions