Page 351 of 472 FirstFirst ... 251301341349350351352353361401451 ... LastLast
Results 3,501 to 3,510 of 4715

Thread: Democrats 2020

  1. Top | #3501
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,768
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    9,308
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    A fool committing a robbery may indeed be shot dead by a victim of his robbery who is a good man with a gun, and who stands his ground. We do not arrest the man who killed him for denying the robber a right to a fair trial.
    There better be damn good evidence he was a robber and the man who killed him was 'a good guy with a gun', because otherwise it's murder and the killer is trying to get away with it by calling his victim a robber.

    A fool who willfully goes to a foreign land to lead a Jihadist war against the US likewise has given up his right not to be killed on his chosen battlefield.
    There better be damn good evidence he's a jihadist waging war against the US before assassination is considered. And even if there's evidence, it's still a violation of the Constitution to condemn him to death without a trial, or strip him of his Constitutional Rights without a Federal Judge ruling on the matter.

    It is ridiculous to require the US to send people into a very risky land far away to arrest somebody who has no intention of being arrested and makes that task almost impossible in a jihadist infected area of a foreign land. It is also stupid to sit around wringing our hands and making no effort to stop the fools savage and brutal war mongering because some people wring their hands and say we need to treat that fool like a common criminal. He is a traitor and a self selected soldier in a war he has declared and acted on.
    If the government has solid evidence he's a traitor, then it's a pretty straightforward process to get a Federal Judge to revoke his citizenship. But if all the Administration has is speculation and supposition, that's not good enough. If they can't make their case that the guy is a traitor in court and convince the Judge his actions warrant the ultimate penalty for treason, they have no business acting like he doesn't have Constitutional Rights.

    It is very dangerous to give the government the power to deny the Constitutional Rights of citizens. Because history shows us that when a government has that power, it uses it to the detriment of any and all citizens.

    Nixon had an Enemies List. Trump sees enemies and 'traitors' everywhere. Think it's a good idea to give a President the power to strip 'enemies' of their Rights?

    The law is, lead military lethal military actions against the US or its allies or innocent civilians at large and you get a military reaction. These self selected war lords know this is going to happen so we do not have feel sorry for them, they chose their fates, knowingly and with full knowledge of the risks that being a jihadist war lord entails. Their trial is the leaving a trail of evidence that calls their attention to the US military, intelligent services, or intelligence services of trusted allies. when one becomes effective enough at being a war lord to in the estimation of the military to warrant the cost of tracking, and spending a lot of money on an expensive operation and an expensive hell fire missile, that expense is not done lightly or without good reason.

    Again, go war lording, expect a war lord's death from above.
    That might be a policy, but it isn't the law.
    Last edited by Arctish; 02-21-2020 at 12:41 PM.

  2. Top | #3502
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    6,091
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    11,206
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    A fool committing a robbery may indeed be shot dead by a victim of his robbery who is a good man with a gun, and who stands his ground. We do not arrest the man who killed him for denying the robber a right to a fair trial. A fool who wilfully goes to a foreign land to lead a Jihadist war against the US likewise has given up his right not to be killed on his chosen battlefield.
    If he was in an active combat zone at the time, then your argument might hold water. When you see someone shooting at you, you can shoot back, whether the person is a US citizen or a foreign citizen. However, at the time of the drone strike, he was not in an active combat zone. That makes this nothing more than an assassination, not a combat death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    It is ridiculous to require the US to send people into a very risky land far away to arrest somebody who has no intention of being arrested and makes that task almost impossible in a jihadist infected area of a foreign land. It is also stupid to sit around wringing our hands and making no effort to stop the fools savage and brutal war mongering because some people wring their hands and say we need to treat that fool like a common criminal. He is a traitor and a self selected soldier in a war he has declared and acted on.
    We send the police into dangerous areas to arrested people all the time. These are people who have no intention of being arrested either. That doesn't mean we simply bomb and flatten the building the person is in, and all the people in that building, simply because the suspect doesn't want to be arrested.

    By the way, since you are calling him a traitor, please share with us the court case where he was tried and found guilty of treason. If you can do that, it will show that I was wrong about how Obama's doctrine of assassinating US citizens thereby rending him ineligible to be on the Supreme Court is not a relevant discussion.

  3. Top | #3503
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,473
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    A fool committing a robbery may indeed be shot dead by a victim of his robbery who is a good man with a gun, and who stands his ground. We do not arrest the man who killed him for denying the robber a right to a fair trial. A fool who wilfully goes to a foreign land to lead a Jihadist war against the US likewise has given up his right not to be killed on his chosen battlefield.

    It is ridiculous to require the US to send people into a very risky land far away to arrest somebody who has no intention of being arrested and makes that task almost impossible in a jihadist infected area of a foreign land. It is also stupid to sit around wringing our hands and making no effort to stop the fools savage and brutal war mongering because some people wring their hands and say we need to treat that fool like a common criminal. He is a traitor and a self selected soldier in a war he has declared and acted on.

    The law is, lead military lethal military actions against the US or its allies or innocent civilians at large and you get a military reaction. These self selected war lords know this is going to happen so we do not have feel sorry for them, they chose their fates, knowingly and with full knowledge of the risks that being a jihadist war lord entails. Their trial is the leaving a trail of evidence that calls their attention to the US military, intelligent services, or intelligence services of trusted allies. when one becomes effective enough at being a war lord to in the estimation of the military to warrant the cost of tracking, and spending a lot of money on an expensive operation and an expensive hell fire missile, that expense is not done lightly or without good reason.

    Again, go war lording, expect a war lord's death from above.

    "If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war."
    - General William Tecumsah Sherman
    Remind me why our troops are there in the first place? Would you say of them, too, that death should come from above, since it was their choice to go warlording in a land that is not theirs?

    It does not surprise me, in the slightest, that you are a fan of Sherman, one of the most violent and heartless generals our nation ever produced.

  4. Top | #3504
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,284
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,168
    Rep Power
    60
    Are you seriously suggesting that a jihadist war lord gets to lead a terrorist war against the US and allies and we just let him continue doing so? REALLY!? Ain't gonna happen, Is it? And no matter how some people stamp their little feet and yap about how we should not be doing that, that is not going to convince many people otherwise.

    If a fool commits himself to leading a war of terror aimed at the US, if the drone operators can find him, that commander of jihadists will die in a war he has committed himself to leading. Sorry, but that is how war works.
    Cheerful Charlie

  5. Top | #3505
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    6,091
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    11,206
    Rep Power
    60
    Accused jihadist warlord. If you disagree show me the court proceedings where the executive established his guilt to a judge and convicted him of being a jihadist warlord.

    If a fool commits himself and is found guilty of it. Accusation isn't proof.

    We are not advocating letting him get away with waging war against the US. You are advocating that accusation is proof of guilt.

  6. Top | #3506
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    9,431
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    26,260
    Rep Power
    84
    A court case is too high a bar here. What one needs here is evidence that (1) he is in some organization's leadership and (2) that organization is a militant Islamist one, instead of some ordinary local militia. Nobody needed a court case for Osama bin Laden, for instance. He abundantly satisfied both criteria.

  7. Top | #3507
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    6,091
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    11,206
    Rep Power
    60
    Of course Osama bin Laden was not a US citizen either.

  8. Top | #3508
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,498
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,711
    Rep Power
    57
    As others have said when authorities are called out to respond to a potential threat lethal force is always on the table. Citizens die every hour, almost, from either attack by threatening persons orby protecting authorities. Deference on the use of force, even when threats are missing, is to authorities in almost every jurisdiction.

    It is only when one exceeds that authority and willfully takes life that such protecting behavior can be deemed inappropriate and those using is so can be sanctioned.

    When a citizen has been deported, potentially stripped of citizenship, or of certain privileges derived thereof, which happens fairly routinely for international and anti-patriotic behavior in this age of non-state player terrorism he is entitled to no more than the care given to a fourteen year old displaying a play gun and getting killed by authorities under command of possible lethal threat, for so doing.

    The presidents Bush and Obama operated with authorities similar to those of a government agent responding to a threat to life call from dispatch. The supreme court has been very clear that such agents are protected by the constitution for so acting. Those suggesting the status of citizen provides protection against all threats or actions which might take the citizen's life which is just not true. Law enforcement protections cover all authorities acting under cover of law for protection of citizens and america against all threats internal and external has been consistently upheld and emphasised by the USSC. Only those exceeding or wilfully taking life without regard to conditions covered by law and alerts can be charged.

    The extensive history of Anwar al-Awlaki provides ample evidence for taking him as a threat to the US. He even left the US under threat of being arrested should he be found.

    Using citizen as a crudgeon of Judicial qualification is a false claim. It is one obviously pulled from whole cloth, with a very biased and personal prejudicial goal of tarring by association of two ideas, citizenship and killing of citizen by authority that are not connected in the reality of civil authority to protect state and public order under the constitution.

    You've been doing a wonderful job Cheerful Charley. I'm ashamed I haven't been there with you. My bad.
    Last edited by fromderinside; 02-21-2020 at 08:26 PM.

  9. Top | #3509
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    18,184
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    21,218
    Rep Power
    94
    Anwar al-Awlaki

    Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, al-Awlaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21 or 22, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was a Yemeni-American imam. U.S. government officials say that, as well as being a senior recruiter and motivator, he was centrally involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda,[7][8][9][10][11] but have not released evidence that could support this statement.[11] Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike without the rights of due process being afforded.[12][13] President Barack Obama ordered the strike.[14] His son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (a 16-year-old U.S. citizen), was killed in a U.S. drone strike two weeks later.[15] On January 29, 2017, al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. commando attack in Yemen that was ordered by President Donald Trump.[16][17][18][19] With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, al-Awlaki was described by Saudi news station Al Arabiya as the "bin Laden of the Internet".[20][21] After a request from the U.S. Congress in November 2010, Google removed many of al-Awlaki's videos from YouTube.[22] According to The New York Times, al-Awlaki's public statements and videos have been more influential in inspiring acts of terrorism in the wake of his killing than before his death.[23]

    As imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), al-Awlaki spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members.[24] In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the mother of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who later e-mailed him extensively, in 2008–09 before carrying out the Fort Hood shootings.[25][26] Al-Awlaki, however, did not reply to Hasan's many emails.[27]During al-Awlaki's later radical period after 2006–07, when he went into hiding, he may have associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner.[28][29] Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning Abdulmutallab's attack.

    The Yemeni government tried him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[30][31] Some U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[32][33] Others felt that Nasir al-Wuhayshi still held this rank and that al-Awlaki was an influential member in the group.[32] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[34][35]
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

  10. Top | #3510
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,074
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,463
    Rep Power
    61
    Imagine thinking the US doesn't deserve to be attacked by jihadists from the Middle Eastern countries we have obliterated and occupied for decades

Similar Threads

  1. Republicans 2020
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 05-01-2020, 12:51 PM
  2. 2020: The Hamburger Election
    By ideologyhunter in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-06-2019, 09:07 AM
  3. Oprah Winfrey in 2020???
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-02-2018, 03:39 AM
  4. US Presidency 2020
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 05-17-2017, 08:10 PM
  5. Replies: 141
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •