Reply With Quote
Murdering a US citizen without charges or trial is a crime.
But YOU esp have no problem with the CIA/Blackops invading and murdering anybody in 70+ countries because "they hate us".
...sided with Crazy Ron on these issues.
Ron Paul Slams Awlaki Killing: ‘He Was Never Tried Or Charged For Any Crimes’
Now, you've got Obama seeking the death penalty at Gitmo tribunals, shooting an unarmed bin Laden, and unleashing the drones of war on an American turned terrorists.
It must gall the anti-war left, to no end, that their man in the White House is simply carrying out the previous administration's policy on terrorism.
Murdering a US citizen without charges or trial is a crime.
But YOU esp have no problem with the CIA/Blackops invading and murdering anybody in 70+ countries because "they hate us".
bush said he didn't care if he got bin ladin.
Um, yeah. Maybe if you read anything besides Pajamas Media and the emails your former Klansman Grandpappy forwards you, you'd know they are pretty dissatisfied with Obama's record in those areas.
With that in mind it's funny how much you guys hate Obama. Maybe it is a race thing after all, I mean he's basically a black GWB if you go by policy.
the bush and musharraf courtship.....lol
I know they are. But, what I find fascinating is, those people you just described as "pretty dissatisfied" with Obama's record were absolutely rabid about wanting President Bush and Vice President Cheney brought up on war crimes charges -- over the same issues.
In fact, the current resident of the White House accused his predecessor of just randomly bombing villages and stuff.
"Pretty dissatisfied?" Where's the ing outrage? That's what I want to know. , it'd be pretty entertaining.
I don't hate Obama; he's done a pretty good job picking up the war on terrorism and seeing President Bush's policies through.
I despise his domestic agenda and, to be fair, you'd have to admit his campaign rhetoric on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't exactly heartening to those of us who believed them to be legitimate military actions that need to be seen through to the end.
He's lived up to his rhetoric on the domestic front - which is very sad. But, that he got one thing right doesn't mean I now support the guy.
getting bin ladin wasn't a bush policy.
so does yoni agree with obama or not?
you are confused again.. some on the left are anti- unecessary war..
secondly not many have problems with killing al-qaida members rather it was invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-qaida
lol legitimate
I'm not confused except by the fact they're not protesting this president as vociferously, on the issue, as they did the previous administration. Why?
I think that's a fairly convenient memory you have there.
There was stiff opposition to killing anybody. , the liberal left was advancing the idea terrorists should be read their rights on the battlefield and coddled. Liberals fought military tribunals. Liberals derided the very types of activities that led to Awlaki's death this week. Liberals would have howled if bin Laden had been killed in the manner done under Obama's administration.
By the way, I'm okay with how both bin Laden and Awlaki were killed; I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal left who spent eight years undermining President Bush's war on terrorism while remaining largely silent for the past 2 1/2 years.
there I made your post little more intelectually honest..
no need to thank me
There was a time when the GOP supported the middle class too but those days are long gone.
Where are they now?
The Greenwald makes a similar point:
However, you're painting with the pointy-headed Fox News broad brush when you use terms such as "liberal left."What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here’s Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President — even Barack Obama — vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.
- more -
So-called Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Obama are as neoliberal as Reagan or Thatcher, and therefore not "left" in any meaningful sense.
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 10-01-2011 at 09:38 AM.
"How would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?"
lol "largely silent"
Dishonest yoni just hasn't been around and now complains. Plenty of complaining on his civil rights record, his failure to close GITMO, and the continuation of Bush policies, especially on this topic.
We Ought To Double Guantanamo!
The penalty for treason...is DEATH!!!
And some liberals still have defended those views. Greenwald, for one. Others have been hypocrites. Such is life.
This guy effectively put on the uniform of the enemy. No reason what so ever to treat him as a criminal. He defected to them, he is the enemy.
Why is there disagreement over this?
Terrorist activity is largely a criminal offense, not a military offense. Outside of the news media cliché, there's no such thing as a "War on Terror". That Congress authorized the use of military force against those people doesn't mean that Congress declared "war" on them, or that the people on the other side are "soldiers". War is declared on nations, not ideologies.
You can simply go back and take a look at innumerable trials of terrorist actions (Unabomber, McVeigh, etc) for precedent on the matter. There's little doubt.
Can we agree we disagree on that point? I see organized terrorism as a warring faction.
They were not organized with other groups.
I couldn't care less how you see them. The US has seen terror acts as a criminal offense throughout it's history.
Not true. There were the Puerto Rican separatist group attacks in the 80's. The first WTC bombing in '93. The Black Liberation Army in the 70's. There's more if you actually look.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
