Media Cast Bush as Rights Abuser, Gloss Over Obama's Killing of U.S. Citizen
The three network morning shows on Friday all highlighted the United States' success in killing terrorist Anwar al Awlaki. However, although these same programs were sensitive to the slightest possible civil rights violation by the Bush administration, they did not seemed interested the fact that Al Awlaki was an American citizen.
Good Morning America, Today and the Early Show mentioned this detail, but didn't provide any analysis or question the President's authority to make such a move. GMA's Brian Ross simply offered, "He was considered such a serious threat to the U.S. that the President had authorized the use of lethal force against him, even though he was an American citizen."
Early Show and Today simply both described al Awlaki as an "American" or "American-born." CBS's Bill Plante noted that Awlaki was "the first American who was ever placed on the CIA's kill or capture list."
Writing on ABC News.com, Jake Tapper and Jason Ryan explained:
How does President Obama have the right to target for killing a US citizen such as Anwar al-Awlaki?
That’s a good question.
As of now, the administration’s legal justification is unclear.
...
Needless to say, this unprecedented ruling has been severely criticized – and all the more so today, with the assassination having been carried out.
The points raised by Tapper online weren't repeated on GMA. ABC's Brian Ross gave only biographical information on al Awlaki: "Born in the United States, in New Mexico in 1971, Anwar al Awlaki went to college in Colorado before heading up mosques in San Diego and Virginia."
[Friday readers: We need today to be our big day! Show your support for NewsBusters by helping us reach our $5,000 goal today. Donate now and get a liberal media bias gift as a thank you.]
In contrast, on the April 16, 2009 World News, reporter Jan Crawford covered the "chilling" revelation that detained terror suspects such as Abu Zubayda were "tortured with an insect in a confinement box" by the U.S.
A just-released report by the Media Research Center, Red, White, and Partisan, showed that journalists saw civil liberty abuses everywhere during the Bush years. On the first anniversary of 9/11, NBC reporter Jim Avila mourned:
JIM AVILA: "This is Jeanean Othman, an American of Palestinian descent. Born 42 years ago in suburban Chicago. Now worried everything she learned as an American about justice and civil rights collapsed along with New York’s Twin Towers."
In the report, the MRC's Tim Graham reminded:
On ABC’s Nightline on December 19, 2005, Terry Moran threw this hardball at Vice President Dick Cheney: “I’d like to put this personally, if I can. You’re a grandfather. I’m a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we’re about to pass to them is a country where the Vice President can’t say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether water-boarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling Americans without the warrant of a court – is that the country we want to pass on to them?”
The same networks that fretted over insect "torture" and threats to civil liberties should also follow up on the Obama administration's killing of an American citizen.
A transcript of the September 30 GMA segment, which aired at 7:03am EDT, follows:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's bring in ABC's chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross. Of course, Brian, you've been tracking al Awlaki for years and his links go all the way back to 9/11. He even met with two of the 9/11 hijackers.
BRIAN ROSS: That's right, George. He was considered such a serious threat to the U.S. that the President had authorized the use of lethal force against him, even though he was an American citizen. The United States has been seeking to kill or capture al Awlaki, for almost two years.
LEON PANETTA (Secretary of Defense): Awlaki is a terrorist.
MICHAEL LEITER (National Counter Terrorism Center): Probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland.
ERIC HOLDER (Attorney General): We certainly want to neutralize him.
ROSS: Born in the United States, in New Mexico in 1971, Anwar al Awlaki went to college in Colorado before heading up mosques in San Diego and Virginia. He presented a calm demeanor in a 2001 Washington Post video profile.
ANWAR AL AWLAKI: I mean, Islam is a religion of peace.
ROSS: But only a year later, al Awlaki would move to Yemen, his family home and the place American authorities say he began to use his internet preaching to recruit terrorists to wage jihad against the United States.
AL AWLAKI: Never underestimate the power of fear, especially when the enemy of Allah hears Allahu Akbar.
RICHARD CLARKE: He could take to them in an American vernacular with arguments that they understood.
ROSS: U.S. authorities say the accused gunman at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Hasan, killed 13 soldiers, after al Awlaki provided religious justification for jihad in a series of E-mails. Al Awlaki was also accused of organizing the attempt to bring down an American jetliner over Detroit, Christmas day 2009. U.S. officials say the so-called underwear bomber was advised by al Awlaki, prior to the mission. And that there were many, many more drawn to al Qaeda training camps in Yemen by al Awlaki's message to do battle on the United States.
CLARKE: I think taking him out of the picture is a major achievement in terms of American security.
ROSS: In fact, even as he was in hiding, al Awlaki was preparing his latest message for al Qaeda through its monthly magazine. It showed a picture of Grand Central terminal in New York City and it was entitled, "Targeting the population of countries that are at war with the Muslims," George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Brian, because he was trying so hard to target the United States, because he had so many links to the United States, American officials are now braced for some kind of retaliation.
ROSS: Absolutely. Just as with bin Laden, there's a feeling that his followers may, in fact, carry out some sort of a retaliatory strike. Even so, it was worth taking him out. And it's a major and historic achievement in the war against al Qaeda.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention this is a historic achievement. And it comes on the heels of a summer where, step-by-step, person-by-person, U.S. officials, U.S. drones have taken out a number of high level al Qaeda operatives.
ROSS: Absolutely. Up and down the command structure of al Qaeda, both in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now in Yemen, senior, major figures are taken out, the most public figures. There are still operational people left. But the major leaders are, in fact, taken out. It is a huge accomplishment.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well, Obama IS "sort of God"
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 3:12pm.
Well, Obama IS "sort of God" (-Evan Thomas), so he can kill whomever he wants.
I say good riddence to this
Submitted by inquiringmind on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 3:16pm.
I say good riddence to this POS but had it been Bush 43 it would be the lead story everywhere talking about this guys rights as an American citizen.
so you are supporting Obama playing Judge, Jury and
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:10pm.
executioner? Tell me that that is not what you mean!
No Irgon*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:24pm.
I did not celebrate the death of Bin Ladin nor any one I know celebrating this assasination. However, when you declare war on a people and you are commander on the battle field, dont be surprised when "soldiers" die.
Dead Americans, 3000 on 9-11
Dead US soldiers, 6230 in Iraq and Afgan
so by your evasion of the question
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:59am.
you are leaning, agreeing, supporting , cheering Obama; that he is now supreme ruler of the universe and he can target anyone anywhere as long as he pins a label on him? You find that is ok with you?
Yes Loon. That is how it works in Straw Man Loon Town.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:13am.
Loon pulls a bunch of crap from it's anus and we are the ones in the wrong should we not agree.
Phweet.
Loons do love the smell of their own farts, don't they?
Wanted: Dead or Alive
Submitted by Dan Diego on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:58pm.
And they called Bush a cowboy?
Cowboy?
Submitted by merly1 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:39pm.
Obama makes Dick Cheney look like Mother Teresa. These Hellfire missile attacks as judge, jury
and executioner are cold-blooded--especially since people in the killzone who arent targets are just
as dead. I like Obama's aggressive use of droning, but the hypocrisy from the left on this is the size
of the Grand Canyon. Waterboarding is nothing compared to drone justice!
Death penalty?
Submitted by redherkey on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 3:25pm.
If a state-authorized execution is conducted without due process, does it count as the death penalty or not?
I've been puzzled to see the total absence of the Davis death penalty opposition crowd up in arms today. I also haven't heard a peep out of the Southern Poverty Research Center, which I'd expect would be on top of this issue, screaming about the targeted killings of brown men who hold unpopular political views by the half-white President in the White House.
Apparently the ACLU is on vacation today, or their phones aren't working.
No...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 3:53pm.
It's not the death penalty, it's the cold blooded murder of a US Citizen!
Sanctioned by the POTUS.
Executed by the CIA.
Without approval of any other branches of government.
Without due process.
Without appeal.
Without a declaration of war.
Without an active confrontation (such as killing him in a battle, or while holding a hostage or something).
It was a long distance assassination of a US Citizen by our own government.
I'm even hearing some praise for this on Fox!!!
POS or not, our government is now putting "hits" out on US Citizens without evidence and due process.
This guy has been on the
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:13pm.
This guy has been on the FBI's most wanted list for some time and has had ample opportunity to turn himself in and take full advantage of the laws Ameircans are entitled to. He chose NOT to turn himself in and face his accusers and present evidence (if any) that would absolve him of his treason. Instead, he turned his back on our legal system and engaged in war against this county. He has therefore rejected his citizenship and should be treated as any enemy combatant. Good riddance.
Many of your assumptions don't work in the US system
Submitted by pockets64 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:31pm.
I am uncertain of your assumptions:
-We cannot ki ll accused citizens just because he was accused of crimes and did not turn himself in.
-He does not have to present evidence to prove his own innocence. The gov't has to present evidence to prove his guilt.
-You don't effectively reject citizenship. You renounce it or you don't.
With your logic, people who leave the US to avoid paying income taxes despite the fact that they are still responsible for paying those taxes are subject to trial-by-airstrike.
I don't care for this POS. Yes, he did deserve what he got IF he truly did what he is accused of doing. But we don't know. We do know the WH is pumping up the POS's resume. Reminds me of "The Running Man."
Look up 8 USC 1481. These are
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:55pm.
Look up 8 USC 1481. These are some of the conditions for a defacto surrender of a citizenship....
a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3)ENTERING, or serving in, the ARMED FORCES of a FOREIGN state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in HOSTILITIES AGAINST the UNITED STATES, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(7) committing any act of TREASON against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or BEARING ARMS AGAINST, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy WAR against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
He met at least one of the conditions therefore he is NOT a U.S. citizen so he is fair game.. In any case, the gov't has enough evidence to prove his guilt.
Still not seeing it, RB...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:42pm.
First, the very definition of an enemy combatant is that they are not an armed force of a foreign state. So that one is out.
Committing treason is out, because it explicitly says "if and when he is convicted thereof"
The fifth amendment is clear, and can't be superseded by law, anyway... it's simple:
"...No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."
"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Sorry, RB, without some other actions becoming known, this action was clearly unconstitutional.
Bearing arms against the US
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:34am.
Is the first one that stands out.
Habeas Corpus can be suspended.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
We Are The 53%
Still
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 9:11am.
Even if you suspend Habeas Corpus, some due process is required (a court order, legislative action, whatever), to prevent the POTUS from having unlimited right to kill US Citizens.
So, not an unlikely scenario: POTUS decides all firearms owners who express opposition to a UN treaty to regulate small arms is a danger, and "public Safety may require" that they be shot on sight.
Rebellion and Invasion imply immediate and rapid reponses. Was 9/11 an invastion? Yes. But it was 10 years ago. Was Al-wacky rebellious? We think so, but it's not proven.
Wow.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 10:33am.
...it's not proven.
Whatever dude. I took precious moments out of my day to look up and bring articles here that showed the President did indeed have the lawful right to kill this guy.
Now you are demanding proof of why. Whatever.
EXCLUSIVE: New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot
+++
* The U.S . government claims that Awlaki has tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction – specifically poisons such as cyanide and ricin – for use in attacking Westerners.
* Awlaki specifically directed Umar Faruq Abdulmutallab in December 2009 to detonate the “underwear” bomb on board a Christmas Day Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. The government said that Awlaki told Abdulmutallab to detonate the bomb while over U.S. airspace so as to maximize casualties.
* In October 2010, AQAP attempted to explode two U.S. cargo planes by detonating explosives hidden in ink cartridges mailed to synagogues in Chicago. The U.S. government said that Awlaki directly supervised this failed terrorist plot.
* In 2010, Awlaki communicated with Rajib Karim, then a British airlines worker, seeking a way to get a bomb aboard a plane at Heathrow Airport. Karim was convicted in March 2011 in a British court on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
* The U.S. government blames Awlaki for “inspiring” terrorist attacks against the U.S., including Fort Hood shooter Hasan – who emailed with him, having attended some of Awlaki’s sermons in Virginia. Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad claimed to have been “inspired by” Awlaki.
* In March 2010, Awlaki said in an audio message that “America is evil” and called for violence against the U.S. “With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said.
* Awlaki wrote several articles for INSPIRE magazine, published by AQAP, to justify terrorist attacks.
+++
"If the situation remains we will see new Nidal Hasans appearing," Awlaki warned. "These American soldiers on their way to Afghanistan and Iraq, we will kill them."
+++
But the administration should also declassify and release Awlaki's emails with the Fort Hood Shooter, as well as any other threads of evidence that have been missed. Those bits of intelligence that are still highly sensitive because they deal with current operations can be redacted.
We still have people in place, undercover. We are still monitoring communications the terrorists are unaware of. But let's just blow all that so we can have proof on the interwebs, mmmmkay?
+++
The CIA have added Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen implicated in both the Nidal Hassan Fort Hood shooting and the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day, to a capture-or-kill list of terrorist threats. Awlaki, born in New Mexico, required a special government review through the National Security Council to place him on the list, by virtue of him being a US citizen.
Huh? "...due process is required (a court order, legislative action, whatever), to prevent the POTUS from having unlimited right to kill US Citizens..." Son of a gun. Look at that. Hmmmmm. The NSC was REQUIRED to do a review. Hmmmm. Yeah, due process. Hmmm.
+++
Awlaki released a videotape in April 2010 in which he claimed he was "proud" to have trained Hasan and Abdulmutallab. "I am proud to have been their teacher," Awlaki said in the videotape, which was aired on Al Jazeera.
+++
Dude. Please Please Please stop.
Due process
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 2:44am.
Legislative action.
We Are The 53%
RB...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:55pm.
i know that your heart is in the right place, i have mixed emotions about this also.
But as a US Citizen, being on the list means he gets arrested, and if he resists, then he can be shot while resisting.
Obama put a "hit" out on him. Obama sentenced him to death without a trial.
If he weren't a US Citizen, i would be 100 percent with you on this. If he'd been convicted of treason, same. If he'd had his citizenship legally stripped, same. If he were actively in a battle at the time of his death, or robbing a bank, or holding a hostage at gunpoint, same.
But he was a US Citizen assassinated from a distance by order of the POTUS, in a country with which we were not at war, and without a constitutional declaration of war to which he could be maligned.
Seriously, maybe they will start putting "hits" on people on the "no fly list." They are there for a reason, right? Someone thought they were dangerous, right? Maybe those "terrorists" in the NRA, or the anti-abortion crowd, always "terrorizing" those poor abortion doctors. Just kill 'em. Right?
I understand what you're
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:59pm.
I understand what you're saying and it would be a matter of concern that a US citizen could be hunted down like that. However, if you look at 8 USC 1481 (above post), by engaging in arms against the U.S. he has surrendered any rights as a citizen. So he's fair game.
RB...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:12pm.
As with everything else in the US (appropriately, i might add), there needs to be due process:
"8 USC 1481 section d) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. "
I agree that our government should have stripped him of his citizenship. If they had, i would have had no issue with this. But they didn't. Procedurally, in absence, by legislative or judicial or executive action.
So, like it or not, if he really was a citizen, and his citizenship was not removed (it cannot automatically be removed), then Obummers action was wrong.
Let's say Obama decides that NRA members who are also tea party'ers are, in the opinion of the FBI, taking up guns against the government. So, Big Sis puts us all on the "terrorist watch list." Hey, just strip our citizenship and ace us.
Same thing, yet again.
P.S. i was equally against holding Padilla without a trial during the previous admin.
Also....
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:34pm.
Oh, BTW, under the "losing citizenship by bearing arms against the US government" section (part a, subsection 7), it also says that they lose their citizenship,
"if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."
How can he prove his
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:36pm.
How can he prove his innocence if he refused to come in to present his case? The assumption has to be that he did this voluntarily if he refused to come in to consult his lawyer. Instead he continued his warfare against the citizens of this country. In this case, it should have been latae sententiae and the prosecution should have brought this up to a federal judge. But we don't know if the FBI did this or not. His actions certainly prove his intent. But I guess that's just speculation until / if the gov't released any documents pertaining to this case.
Someone on Fox
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:51pm.
Someone on Fox actually reported that they decided not to strip him of citizenship because it was "so complex."
Fact is, they could have done it, even without his presence. If they did, as i stated earlier, i would have had no issue with the action. But if they didn't, then it's simple...
They put out a "hit" on a US Citizen with whom they had a problem, and then they executed on that "hit."
Lot's of maybes, but so far, the known information is that he was as much a citizen as Obama, hadn't been stripped of it, and was murdered by the government for things they "believe" he might have done.
was just thinking...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:53pm.
they didn't want to go through the trouble to strip this guy of citizenship (if they didn't, as we've heard), but they can spend so much time writing bad loan guarantees and padding the pockets of their corporate cronies. Sad priorities.
Oh, that's part of the problem, BTW:
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:00pm.
They never tried to make the case to remove his citizenship. As far as i know, they never indicted him, nor officially charge him with any crimes (at least, as far as i can discover). They suspected him, but then, they suspect us of being terrorists because we believe in the US Constitution, right?
Well, we don't know whether
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:10pm.
Well, we don't know whether they stripped his citizenship but since he refused to come in for a hearing it would be reasonable to assume that he was not interested in his rights (at the very least). If he was concerned for his life or safety, if he was concerned for his rights as a citizen, he didn't show it. Instead he continued with his jihad. My argument is that in this case, a judge should rule him an enemy combatant ad initio. He automatically waived his citizenship therefore it was a legal kill. We can't force people to abide by the Constitution or adhere to it.
RB, we are soooooo close.
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:18pm.
But i can't find anywhere that you "automatically waive" citizenship, if no due process is initiated. I can certainly see it if due process has happened, and a judge rules that his citizenship is removed. But i'm not seeing any of that, and i refuse to accept that the president can just decide it and kill anyone he wants.
Even the Rosenbergs were tried.
The Rosenbergs were here on
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:27pm.
The Rosenbergs were here on U.S. soil. But in any case, this is one that has to be settled by the courts since this will no doubt come up again. As you've mentioned as the law is written, there has to be due process but if an American is outside the US and refuses to exercise those rights, what choice does the military have other than to take him out especially if they are actively fighting our troops?
Well
Submitted by retrocon on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:32pm.
his intention may have been to actively fight our troops, but he was driving somewhere in Yemen, a country with which we are not at war and in which, we have no battlefield. If you want to argue that everywhere is a battlefield to al-Q, then we have have already lost... because the implication would be that the US is not a place where the government can target citizens.
I agree, if it were a battlefield, if it were a war zone, a theatre of battle, if they were engaging US troops, whatever, i would agree with you.
But it wasn't. It was an assassination of a US Citizen in a neutral country (sort of), from a "hit list."
read this retro*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:47pm.
It looks like it costs us a great deal of $$$ to get Yemen's permission..
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-approves-150-million-help-yemen-fight-terrorism
Oh goody cajun!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:13pm.
We're going to finance and train people who are most likely our enemies! And we'll pay China, a country diametrically opposed to everything this country stands for, to get the money to do it!
I swear my poodle could run this country better than 99% of the politicians out there.
How about bribes to Pakistan*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:25pm.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Lautenberg-Pakistan-aid-OsamabinLaden/2011/05/03/id/395033
Between Yemen and Pakistan that is almost $3Billion since Feb 2010.. Just to fly drones in their air space. Just think how many "jobs" we could create with $3 billion spent here.
cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:30pm.
All part of the plan to redistribute wealth, just on another level.
cajun does not like Obama*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:41pm.
Cajun I am, I am cajun. I do not like Obama. I do not
like Obama here, or there
.I do not like Obama anywhere..
cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:42pm.
cajun is one smart cookie!
thank you Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:57pm.
Not that smart, Cant seem to keep up with the constant changes to NB. Can't even post a link correctly...arrggghh
3 billion
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 9:13am.
under Obama?
3 Billion US Dollars?
That's about 10 green jobs, right?
In China.
How?
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:37pm.
"How can he prove his innocence if he refuse to come in..."
So, if you issue a warrant, and someone doesn't come in, you put out a kill order. GUILTY!
Sounds like Mao, Stalin, whoever.
Actually, it sounds more like "Dillinger" due process...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:49pm.
Jer
Ah....his "citizenship"
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:53pm.
I would like to point out that his "citizenship" is apparently a function of the "anchor baby" glitch in our laws. He was born here, and was thus conferred with U.S. citizenship. Yet his parents (not naturalized) took him back to Yemen, where he spent the years from 7-18 as a Yemeni citizen. He re-entered the US on a Yemeni foreign student visa, whilst receiving government aid from Yemen.
Does that fact abrogate his citizenship?
According to the laws of the land, if he IS a citizen of the U.S., his termination was without due process.
What we need to consider, AGAIN, is the conferring of U.S. citizenship, and all of the rights and privileges thereto, upon a human being who is merely born upon U.S. soil....this is an issue that MUST be addressed.
Of course, we won't bother to discuss the importance and underlying issues of al-Alwaki's death....the media will spin it as a win for President Downgrade. Having said that, if I were the pilot of the strike plane, I'd definitely be watching my six.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:02pm.
Well said, i actually agree with you on all points.
Being in AZ, the "anchor baby" problem is real. And i actually don't think that anchor babies are citizens -- their parents are not legally under the jurisdiction of the our laws by the fact that they are here illegally.
al-gotwacki'd is tougher to argue, his parents were here legally as i understand it... going to school or something. You would be hard pressed to argue that he wasn't born under the jurisdiction of US law. Though, much like Obummer, there is an "implied" rejection of citizenship if the parents or individual don't declare it at some point.
Now, that said, if Obummer were to try to say, "Well, he may have been born here, but he wasn't a citizen..." well, let's just say i doubt he wants to walk across that bridge ;-)
Agreed, Retro
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:11pm.
Good for you! You recognized another little problem with the "anchor baby" thing.....
A baby born here whose parents are legal visitors, but not citizens. Again, I don't believe that this circumstance should automatically confer citizenship upon the child. If the parents, legal aliens, are in the process of acquiring citizenship, then the child, IMO, should not be given citizenship until his/her parents have been naturalized. Once that occurs, I'm all in, the child gets natural born citizenship status.
LOL, on your last, walking backwards is something the Big White is doing a lot of these days, but I have to agree.
P.S. After reading rbosque's post on the statute, al-Al's actions more than likely nullified his rights as a citizen....but to me, we still need to address this GAPING HOLE in our laws (again, unintended consequences....a law written to redress the wrongs of slavery is now wreaking havoc a hundred and forty years on).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:20pm.
Thanks, again, we are in violent agreement. i think the whole "natural born citizen" thing needs to be clarified. But through law, not made up court opinions. It was poorly worded in the 14th, and remains so.
On the al-Al thing, see my last to rb... there still needs to be due process.
I actually heard that the government was going to try to strip these bozos of their citizenship, but the process was "too complex."
Again, i ask, do we give up our rights to due process because it's "inconvenient" for our government.
Alas....
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:29pm.
Everything is too complex for our government these days...except wantonly spending money (we don't have). They abrogate their responsibility in law making to a "super-committee" these days. Disgusting.
We probably need to put this one (anchor baby) on the back burner until we retake both Houses of Congress and the Big White....but it MUST be addressed, and soon.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
oops...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:55pm.
i think i stole your idea of "but it's not too difficult to spend money" in a post above...
So now, i officially credit you with the insight ;-)
have a great weekend, Blonde!
Is he really a citizen?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:47am.
Just because he was born in the US doesn't make him a citizen. If his parents raised him as a citizen of Yemen, then hemight have had dual citizenship until he was 18. After he was 18 he came to the US on a Yemeni passport, on a visa. At that point he in NOT a US citizen.
Neither Yemen nor the US recognizes dual citizenship with the other.
We Are The 53%
Why wasn't Jane Fonda indicted for treason?
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:38pm.
One reason may have been that congress did not "officially" declare war on North Vietnam. It was morally wrong for her and Attorney General Ramsery Clark to travel to North Vietnam and do photops with the enemy. Our GIs were getting slaughtered by the VC and North Vietnamese and our captured POWs were being lobbyied by the Hanoi Janes to sell out their country.
In the "war on terrorism," another "officially" undeclared war, we are now stepping up the attack on the Constitution by a POTUS using an unsavory character with alleged ties to al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda plots, to terrorize the Bill of Rights in particular the right to a trial and the entire due process doctrine!
Yes, I agree with those that say that had Bush done what Obama just did - attack the Bill of Rights due process doctrine- that the media would be all over him like a pan handler in downtown Atlanta. But the point is missed that anytime the president uses a war to attack what the terrorists claim to hate us for (our freedom) his actions come close to being Machiavellian.
The war on terrorism is turning the calendar back to 1692 and the Salem "witch trials." How close to the truth the account that the accused were thrown into a pool of water to determine their innocence and guilt is debatable. What is true is that the POTUS and his advisors have made themselves judge, jury and executioner and now with this ugly prescedent being established you are on their list!
Another telling feature of this latest attack at the BOR is that the liberals are mostly silent on this outrage just as those who were silent when Bush carried out outrageous attacks on the same Constitution.
Look Boys and Girls. An outraged Loon.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:20am.
That is a first. No loon has ever been outraged... Who is laughing? I hear you. Stop giggling. Now, an outraged loon can easily be... I hear that. Someone is still laughing. Stop. So, to enable a loon to be outra... Bwahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, I could not keep a straight face either.
An outraged own fart sniffing loon. Aka the common loon.
Without due process...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:39pm.
If there is a Dem CIC, no due process is necessary.
If there is not a Dem CIC, no due process is ever sufficent.
Try to keep up with the rules, knuckle-draggers.
False equivalence
Submitted by sherlock1 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:53pm.
NPR host this morning asked "reporter" whether this was not a slippery slope. Short answer: No, not at all "because we have been here before". See, back in 2002 (Booooosh!) we zapped an AQ convoy and one of the dead turned out to be an American! See, if you squint real hard and ask no hard questions, that's the exact equivalent of this rub-out!! So no problemo for the big O, because Boooosh did it first!
I have to go puke now. What the media is doing to this country is nauseating.
Actually, no.
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:25pm.
sherlock, you are right, the media is making us all puke.
They won't admit the difference....
That would be regarded as "friendly fire," technically. And in any case, the american in that case was in a war zone.
Bush did NOT put out an executive order to kill the US Citizen. And, the citizen was in a convoy in a war zone.
We are not at war with Yemen. Al-alwackie was a US Citizen. We had not, to my knowledge, stripped him of that citizenship. And, Obama put out a specific, named kill order on him without due process. And then executed on it.
No similarity at all.
If pressed,
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:34pm.
Obama will probably hide behind "cooperation with the Yemeni government", as al-Alwaki had dual citizenship.
Book it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No doubt...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:38pm.
but unless THEY pushed the kill button, we still put a "hit" out on a US citizen, and then did the "hit" ourselves. And it was not an active confrontation (like a bank robbery, battle, or hostage situation, or even fleeing arrest).
But you are right, there will be more spin on this than a major league curve ball.
Talk about spin!!!
Submitted by IdahoJim on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:42pm.
Active confrontation? Is that liberal speak?
This guy was actively seeking conflict with the US. We just took him out before he could actively act.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Idaho...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:51pm.
hey, i'm as conservative as ANYONE on this board.
I'm also very much in favor of enhance interrogation (of non-citizens), of killing non-citizens who present a threat (and no due process is necessary).
But active confrontation just means that he wasn't engaged in a battle, or holding a hostage, or fleeing arrest. And since he was still a US Citizen by all accounts (so far), the fifth amendment says that he was entitled to due process under the law. Period.
"Seeking conflict" doesn't mean squat. And if it did, the only recourse is to apprehend him and try him (it's ok if he gets killed while trying to arrest him, BTW).
But he was a citizen who, without any due process of law, was assassinated by order of the president.
Maybe if you're a good conservative, NRA member, anti-abortionist, maybe the administration might declare you someone "actively seeking conflict with the US." Maybe they will just take you out before you can act.
How's that work for you?
al Alwaki is dead---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:53pm.
Good riddance.
The end.
MD
Well said,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:58pm.
I have no problem with the killing of this trash.
I do note, however, the lack of protest from the hypocritical left. I'm shocked.
However, lives were saved with this man's killing, there's no doubt about that.
I have no problem either, NC Cop....
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:36pm.
but if you have failed to find any protest from the left, it is because you have failed to look for it.
Jer
Really, Jer?
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:46pm.
So you believe that had Bush done the same thing, the media would have been just as supportive, even if that support is silence??
I don't know, NC...you're asking a hypothetical question which
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:53pm.
raises a different point than the one made in my response, which we can address further if you wish.
Jer
No, it's not a different point than you made.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:05pm.
You were saying that I had not been looking for the outrage from the left that would have occurred if Bush were president when this was done.
I'm basing my assumption on the 8 years of media coverage of Bush and I have no doubt that had Bush done this, the talking heads on networks everywhere would be screaming into the camera about the legality of killing an American citizen this way.
Negatory, NC...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:24pm.
You suggested there was no protest from the left over the killing of Awlaki. I suggested you are wrong. It was a faction on the left as well as Ron Paul conservatives who primarily led the Constitutional outcries during the previous administration, and it is those same factions which are leading the current outcry.
Jer
Bonus points for using "Negatory"!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:30pm.
However, you're comparing apples to oranges. Whatever protest there might be, is nowhere near what would have been had Bush been in office. The article itself notes this.
Ron Paul? Really?
Thanks...I'm saving them for future use.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:36pm.
You may very well be right, but it's hard to quantify--and it's still a hypothetical scenario.
And, yes. Really.
Jer
"but it's hard to
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:45pm.
"but it's hard to quantify--and it's still a hypothetical scenario."
Whatever you have to tell yourself, brother.
I generally find sticking to the truth works out for the best.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:14pm.
By the way, congratulations on managing to completely deflect the point of my original reply to your earlier post.
Well done, sir. ;-)
Jer
Do tell ,Jer.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:16pm.
What, praytell, was your point?
I've forgotten.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:28pm.
Oh yeah...that, contrary to your original contention, there has indeed been protest from the left regarding Obama's kill order on Awlaki. However, I think you have since at least tacitly acknowledged that fact, so I take back the "completely deflected" charge.
Jer
Ok, whatever tiny bit of
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:32pm.
Ok, whatever tiny bit of protest that has been raised from the left qualifies as "protest from the left", fair enough?
It still in no way compares to what would have been being screamed from every liberal pundit and writer for the next 3 weeks about the killing of a U.S. citizen.
Apparently, you didnt actually read this article.
Well, what article are you referencing?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:00pm.
Whitlock's blog--which I read--or one or more of the three linked articles in his blog, which I didn't? And, apparently you didn't read the article I linked earlier in my first comment on this thread.
Jer
I get it, Jer. You equate an
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:07pm.
I get it, Jer. You equate an aritcle here and there with the same kind of venom and hatred that Bush received for 8 years. I get it. However, that doesn't make it true. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding this.
Is there some reason, NC...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:16pm.
that you won't tell me which article you had in mind when you assumed I hadn't read it? Is there something unclear about "Well, which article are you referencing?"
Jer
Oh, sorry. The Whitlock
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:15pm.
Oh, sorry. The Whitlock blog. Is that better?
Was it better? Inasmuch as it was responsive to my question,
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:48pm.
what do YOU think?
[Doing my best to keep the chain of sarcasm intact.] :-)
Jer
Wow...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:40pm.
A cop who thinks it's ok to kill a US Citizen who is "suspected" of a crime, but no indicted, convicted or tried, completely without due process.
not liking this at all.
Oh spare me, retrocon.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:54pm.
This wasn't a shoplifter, ok? This was a man trying to kill as many Americans as possible. He was hiding in a foreign country because he knew he could count on the likes of you to make it easier for him, take a bow.
Watch where you slap that self righteous paint brush. His death saved a lot of lives, period.
Again...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:22pm.
you are right, he wasn't a shoplifter, he was a suspect.
And, you miss my point completely, NC.
I don't want to make it easier on the foreigners, i want justice for citizens according to the constitution.
while i would have happily aced this dude myself, i as an individual, am willing to accept the consequences. But, by accepting that the government can do it, you open a door to a dark place that you will not like.
"while i would have happily
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:34pm.
"while i would have happily aced this dude myself, i as an individual, am willing to accept the consequences."
So it's ok for you to kill this guy, but not the government? Got it.
Looks like some people are still stuck with the USS Cole.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:34am.
The USS Cole was attacked by Islamic terrorists at war with the United States and we had no real response as we only treated war as an action by a sovereign country.
Then September 11, 2001 happened.
We have changed the terminology to update it to the present times.
In a 420-1 vote late Friday, the House gave final congressional approval to a resolution authorizing President Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in Tuesday's deadly terrorist attacks.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, registered the lone dissenting vote, saying she was reluctant to approve any force that could worsen the situation.
The move came hours after the Senate unanimously gave Bush the green light to strike against individuals or nations that "planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks."
Thousands were presumed to be dead when four hijacked planes crashed into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania on Tuesday.
Though not a formal declaration of war, it adds weight to the president's desire to launch a massive retaliation while requiring the White House to continue consulting with lawmakers.
That was September 15th, 2001.
You no longer have to be a country to declare war on the United States. And we no longer have to accept declarations of war and acts of war as only coming from countries.
It is a different world folks. Live with it. You kill our citizens. We will kill you back.
Good, Mister Conservative...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:27pm.
American officials added al-Awlaki two years ago to a list of targets whom the military is authorized to kill, a move that raised the consternation and concerns of many civil liberties groups.
"For two years since Awlaki has reportedly been added to a kill list, the administration has made a lot of statements to the press but has presented no evidence to a court," said Ben Wizner, the National Security Project Litigation Director at the ACLU. "There's a distinction between allegations and evidence that's pretty critical here. Our argument isn't that you need to go to a court just to make the claim that he is an imminent threat, but placing someone on a kill list for months or years seems fundamentally inconsistent with the legal definition of 'imminent,' and so there's really no reason why a judicial role can't happen here."
source
...you have now tossed your hat into the same ring of outrage occupied by the uber-leftist Glenn Greenwald, the ACLU and others dancing on the head of a pin of legal niceties extended to those like Awlaki who would rather engage in terrorism against this country and slaughter you and your family than eat. There may be a Constitutional issue to be raised, but you--and, frankly, this website--should have done so two years ago when Awlaki was added to the list of targets instead of at the time he was accordingly dispatched.
Jer
Jer...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:45pm.
for the first, and maybe last time, we are in total agreement.
I was also, BTW, against the Bush holding of Padilla without trial.
I actually wasn't aware of this happening two years ago, so don't include me. I was NOT aware that Obama had place US Citizens on a kill list, or i would have raised a HUGE issue with it.
If you read my posts throughout this thread, you would realize my sincerity in this matter.
it's actually got me really bothered.
more so than my usual distrust of government.
Well, retro...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:04pm.
I'm afraid we do disagree on the propriety of the action. But I certainly respect and appreciate your position, the basis of your argument, and your philosophical and intellectual consistency. [And, for the record, I was unaware of the kill order also, as, I am sure, were most Americans.]
Jer
Oh, sorry, Jer
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:31pm.
Sorry, Jer, so many posts, and i read yours so quickly, i misunderstood.
I am really not bothered by Al-wacky's death. I am bothered that our government intentionally targetted a US Citizen with a kill order, and that citizen was not convicted of a crime. If he had died in a capture attempt, or in battle, or as a result of a an attack on a convoy in a war zone... great! No problem.
But now that you are educated beyond the MSM, let me ask, are you OK with the POTUS having a list of US Citizens that he wants to kill (he has not solid proof, convictions, or indictments), and then executing them at a whim, using the CIA.
Let me know...
I found this, Jer & Retrocon
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:44pm.
I knew he was on the "kill" list, but I am having a hard time finding the exact date.
Pretty generic info...Yahoo...so it can't be that hard to find.
Soon after that, increasingly the subject of law enforcement scrutiny over his past close contacts with two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego, al-Awlaki fled to his ancestral home of Yemen. His fluent English and charismatic sermons, propagated on the Internet, turned him into a leading international propagandist for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). U.S. officials describe the al-Qaida Yemeni branch as currently the most active terrorist group pursuing attacks against the United States homeland. Al-Awlaki was placed on the U.S. list of terrorists to be targeted for kill or capture last year, then Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told Congress.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thanks, Blonde...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:34pm.
It's been in a lot of press lately, and the administration is not denying it. I'm sure that they didn't make an "announcement" when they did it, so it might be hard to find.
But it seems to be accepted fact, probably more so than global warming ;-)
Is there a lawyer in the house?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:01pm.
I assume someone cannot be put on trial "in absentia" unless he has first been arrested and given his legal rights before fleeing jurisdiction. If I'm wrong please let me know.
My question is, how could the U.S. government have done this in such a way as to be legal? Could his citizenship have been revoked first somehow, then he could be declared a foreign combatant?
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:47pm.
You seem to be presuming "illegality" when the more appropriate framing would be "debatable legality". If Awlaki, an American citizen, were a known member of a Taliban or Al-Qaeda gang of assassins murdering US military personnel in Afghanistan, and they were tracked and located by our own Special Forces team, do you think there would be a constitutional issue over our guys summarily mowing them down--including Awlaki?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:05pm.
I suppose if he was the with armed forces who were actively killing, then yes, he could be viewed as a traitor fighting for the other side. But as I understand it, he was encouraging, planning, and organizing for the other side. In civilian terms I would say then you can kill someone coming at you with a weapon in self-defense, but you cannot kill someone who is planning your murder. O.k., very simplified, but I am out of my depth here on the legality of the whole thing.
Hence my question, is there a procedure whereby Awlaki could be killed in a legal, and constitutional way? Sadly, this is probably not going to end with Awlaki. They are telling us these "home grown terrorists" are something we need to face up to. I think our government really needs to address this.
Fair question
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:37pm.
i think as a US Citizen, we have two obligations:
1) don't put him on a kill list
2) try to capture him
Then, if you kill him while he's resisting... so be it. That's what SEALs are for, right?
But at least you tried.
Note, i'm not saying that the SEALs should have captured bin ladin... he was NOT a US Citizen... execution works fine for me there.
Rad....
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:38pm.
"...is there a procedure whereby Awlaki could be killed in a legal, and constitutional way? Sadly, this is probably not going to end with Awlaki."
Again, the administration's position is that his killing was indeed legal and constitutional. Look, at one extreme, if we are merely dealing with an American citizen who sympathizes with Islamic militants there is no question about his being subject to constitutional protections ensuring due process, etc., as opposed to the other extreme of an American citizen who has become a known and active combatant attacking US forces in a war zone and is killed in a firefight, in which case those constitutional protections would have been inapplicable.
And in between those two extremes, the constitutional issue is one big gray area.
Jer
Alright JER this is the question.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:11am.
Was he really an American citizen?
Just because he was born in the States doesn't mean he is a citizen.
His parents were Yemeni citizens so he would have dual citizenship until he was 18. At that point he would have to choose. Since he traveled to the US on a Yemeni passport, with a student visa after he was 18, that would mean that he had declared himself a citizen of Yemen.
Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. If he is a Yemeni citizen then he is only a Yemeni citizen.
Although just using a foreign passport doesn't mean a person relinquishes their US citizenship.
But on the flip side, Dual citizenship with Yemen is not allowed after naturalization. Other than a birth certificate, has he ever claimed American citizenship? Did he naturalize when he was in college?
I'm confoosing meself.
We Are The 53%
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:18pm.
I'm sure any administration would feel such a killing was legal and constitutional. However, that doesn't make it so. I'd feel the same way if George W. Bush killed an American citizen this way. I really feel we have to look at the process and develop something better to insure the rights of our citizens are protected. We have no guarantees on the morals of the POTUS, so we need his power reigned in no matter who holds the position.
Hi Rad.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:54pm.
It's me. As I showed below. The President has the authority to kill a man waging war on this country. Citizenship does not matter.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/09/30/media-cast-bu...
And it is not just the POTUS standing out there by his lonesome. The man is surrounded by people, military people, lawyer type people, long time government employee people, Joint Chiefs people, Covert Intelligence people, Defense Intelligence people... He is not out there making decisions by himself. Just as President Bush did not stand out there by himself in a storm. The President sometimes has good advisors and he did the right thing here.
Our rights are protected. So no need to worry there. The rights of one dead terrorist, yeah, not so protected. It was a good day. Let's celebrate a little. The Stuttering Clusterbunny of a Miserable Failure got one right. He don't do it that often. And fortunately for us all, he gets some things right in the military area where he needs to protect us. And that, that is what is important. That is job number one for the President after all.
So don't worry. You just keep an eye on me and Dave and matthewdean. You see us inching toward the newly built bunker, then, then you yell at us, hey wait for me.
The Vet
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:43pm.
Why thank you kind sir. That was what I was looking for, the power given to the president to do what he did. It's not that I have sympathy for the scumbag, I just don't trust "politicians" or "community organizers" who are elected president to do the right thing.
If you're inching, I"ll be running!
Oh and Uncle Jer. Grow a spine.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:56pm.
"the administration's position is that his killing was indeed legal and constitutional."
Say it man. It is your position. It is my position as well. And Denny's. and MD's. When you are right, you are right.
Spine is fully grown, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:38pm.
If I say the administration's position is that the action was legal and constitutional, and I personally agree with the action--which I had previously made clear--that should sufficiently state my opinion about the legality of killing the bastard. That said, I can't and won't be completely dismissive of constitutional counterarguments since I don't believe they are without merit. It's one of those sticky issues about which reasonable minds can differ.
Uncle Jer
Din't catch the previously part.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 3:05pm.
As far as the sticky part, say, ain't that what they are saying about Awlaki? Parts of him are sticking to the wheel well, parts are sticking to to the trunk, parts are sticking to the bumpers, parts are sticking to the radio.....
Ahhhhh. I keel me. I do. Ah really do.
I did manage to turn away from my monitor
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:15pm.
and keyboard, Vet. That was great, understated but spot on.
Thanks Mr. UpNorth.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:29pm.
You can catch the 2nd show at HuffPo in a few days. Uncle Jer steals all my material. What am I gonna do, he's family.
no.
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:39pm.
No constitional issues:
IF he were in a theatre of war
IF he were actively engaging our troops
IF he were actively running from apprehension
But he wasn't doing any of those. We put out a "hit" on him. We carried it out with a drone from way up high.
retrocon
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:53pm.
"IF he were in a theatre of war"
In today's ongoing and unprecedented war -- the GWOT ("G" stands for "Global") -- define for us where and what the "theatre" is of this particular war on islamic-driven terror.
- shy vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shack! Under RetroCons
Submitted by BD on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:01am.
Shack!
Under RetroCons rules US fighter planes could not have engaged ground targets in Germany during WWII while the front was in Normandy.
But, but, but... he "sought
Submitted by Dan Diego on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:57pm.
But, but, but...
he "sought to use weapons of mass destruction" and Joe Wilson w/ his gal Val are going to validate this.
I have appreciated the most
Submitted by packman on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:55pm.
I have appreciated the most excellent dialog on this forum by its erstwhile members concerning this particular issue. But I have to weigh in here, very much in agreement with IdahoJim.
Have we forgotten the case of John Walker Lindh? You have to wade through all the spin-doctors opinions etc. and quickly down to the brass tacks of Lindh's situation. He was caught red-handed bearing arms against his native country. For that singular act of treason, he continues to languish in prison, riding out his 20-year sentence. I believe he was lucky that he didn't actually face a firing squad.
In the case of Anwar al Awlaki, he was actively seeking conflict with his "native country," of which he was a citizen...right or wrong, the way the laws and the Constitution are written, he was in fact a bona-fide citizen. (And as Blonde so aptly points out, those tenets need a serious re-write). But here's the bottom line....whether or not this guy actually picked up a weapon against his native country, he made it clear that he advocated doing so. His treason is therefore self-evident.
While the overriding issue seems to be whether or not our government has the right to kill its citizens....the underlying issue...the bedrock issue as far as I am concerned, is....did that citizen openly advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government, did that citizen openly declare war on his home country.....I guess I could go on here, but I'm sure you get the point.
So what are we supposed to do, wait around until this misguided individual files an aircraft into the white house...???
Help me out here fellow NB'ers...am I off course on this line of thinking...???
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Again and again
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:50pm.
we come back to a simple question: are you willing to give up your freedoms for a sense of security?
If so, you will lose both.
I don't care if you rip the ears off of a foreign terrorist (sorry PETA, or whoever watches over those animals).
But when your are talking US Citizens, you have to decide if security is more important than freedom, that simple.
You said, you ask "did that citizen openly advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government?"
Well, what if "they" decide that members of the "Tea Party" are openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Government?"
"They" made the decision, after all.
Are you OK with "them" targeting you for death, without a trial or indictment?
What if Anwar al Awlaki had
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:59pm.
What if Anwar al Awlaki had succeeded in a plot that killed some of YOUR loved ones, retrocon. Then later it was determined that they could have killed him, stopping the plot. Would you pat yourself on the back for your evolved sensibilities? Or would you wonder why your government didn't do everything possible to protect it's citizens?
Or what if they did stop a plot that would have resulted in the death of some of your loved ones? Would you be so upset then?
Somehow I doubt it.
Soooo...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:05pm.
the government should kill anyone who they deem is a threat to anyone?
I have to honestly say that i would rather BE KILLED a free man, than advocate the loss of that freedom.
You are advocating dictatorship. You are advocating that my security is more important than my freedom.
I'm sorry, if you believe in freedom, then you are wrong.
Don't doubt what i believe, because again, you will be wrong.
Pure crap.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:11pm.
You are trying to make this guy out to be someone who did nothing other than disagree with the United States. You're being dishonest and it's sad.
"I have to honestly say that i would rather BE KILLED a free man, than advocate the loss of that freedom."
Very noble, Braveheart, but that's not what I asked. I said your LOVED ones, didn't I? Anything to say about that? Willing to let your wife or child die so you can feel good about yourself?
I'm waiting?
"You are advocating dictatorship."
Wrong again. I'm advocating self-defense.
"Don't doubt what i believe, because again, you will be wrong."
I have no doubt what you believe, you've made that clear. It's what you know that I doubt.
um...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:43pm.
not trying to make him out to be anything, except a US Citizen. If he isn't, then to hell with him.
But if he is, he is deserving as the same rights as every other US Citizen, regardless as to who thinks he's just pond scum. Because believe me, something probably thinks that you are pond scum. Does that give them the right to kill you?
You really are not getting the argument here. You are convinced that because the government said that he's a bad man, that they should be able to go kill him without due process. All i'm saying saying is "not if he's a US Citizen!"
And as far as Braveheart goes... yes, loved ones included. Because i would rather have my loved ones live in a FREE country, than to be subjugated to dictatorship, which is what you are advocating.
Note, i would hunt someone down and kill them if they did such a thing. But then, i am who i am.
Self-defense? So, if an abortionist is going to kill 1000 children this year, is it self-defense to kill the abortionist?
Huh? Not the same thing? By who's standards?
You see, when dealing with US Citizens, you have to be consistent. As soon as you say that some president or some politician can decide when the US Constitution can be circumvented, then there is no longer a rule of law in this country. They will decide who is right, they will decide who is a threat, they will decide who to kill. They just started, today.
"not trying to make him out
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:54pm.
"not trying to make him out to be anything, except a US Citizen."
Therein lies your problem. You say NOTHING but a US Citizen. I see a U.S. citizen who hates his country and is doing everything in his power to destroy it and kill it's citizens. Now, if you have some evidence that this guy is NOT who the government is, present it please.
"yes, loved ones included."
Glad I'm not related to you. This country is still a free country, retro. What happened to that piece of trash didn't change anything.
"Note, i would hunt someone down and kill them if they did such a thing."
So again, when you do it, it's acceptable. When the government does it, it's not. Got it.
"Self-defense? So, if an abortionist is going to kill 1000 children this year, is it self-defense to kill the abortionist?"
Switching to abortion now, eh? I don't blame you, your other arguments were pretty sad.
retrocon, I think you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:44pm.
retrocon,
I think you are arguing a false premise. You are saying that it is either security over freedom or freedom over security.
What is Freedom with the real and actual threat of a mall in the USA being blown up? What is Freedom with the actual and real threat of someone blowing up an airline over a crowded American city? what is Freedom with the actual and real threat of a car bomb going off in New York's Time Square? and etc, etc, etc....
do you think it was Freedom in New York, DC, Chicago and other big cities, especially for New Yorkers after 9/11? Ask a New Yorker what they felt each morning they woke up? That a nuclear bomb was goinng to blow up. That the last thing they were going to see was a flash before the feeling of horrific pain do to nuclear burn out. Is this what you call Freedom?
There can't be any Freedom if we do not have REAL security. The pretense of security is just that, a pretense and false.
there seem to be too many Americans who believe that our laws overide the duty of our nation to secure our Freedom from our enemies, at home and abroad, from American citizens and foreigners.
now, I ask you this question, do you think that the American city, American military base that would have been used to try this terrorist would have be in danger? Are you saying that you are willing to sacrifice the life of innocent men, women and children in order to have a fake sense of Freedom?
If the United States of America did everything within its power to arrest this man and we were unable to and if he became a real, clear and present danger to America, the United States of America has every RIGHT and DUTY to protect its citizens from this terrorist. It is HIS fault, not the USA's, that he was killed. Let's put the blame where it belongs!
As I said when Osama was killed. I mourn every death of a human being. We are destroying God's Creation and we as Christians must pray for Osama Bin Laden to be shown Mercy by God, just like we must pray for this man. We MUST pray for our enemies and that good things happen to them. This is, as Jesus so eloquently said, w hat makes us different from the pagans. We pray for our enemies, we wish good and happy things to happen to our enemies. But we can't be idiots either and Jesus didn't wnat this. We must defend ourselves from enemies at home and abroad. However, like Osama, this man brought this upon himself. he is culpable for his death, not the American soldiers who carried it out. Self-defense is what is at stake here.
An American citizen inside of the USA who is a clear and present danger to his/her local, State or Federal community will be killed if the authorities are unable to aprehend him. As the godfather of my son, who is a Chicago cop, has told me. When they go hunting for a serial killer they are giving orders to shoot on site if the killer presents a clear and present danger to them, the community, innocent bystanders, etc, etc, etc. No trial, no nothing. This whole thing that, "He is an American citizen thus he had rights!" Is not true. As Abraham Lincoln said so well, The United States Constitution cannot be the end of the USA. Let us not use our laws to destroy ourselves!
and by the way, I have to 100% disagree with Blonde (sorry Blonde, one of those few times we disagree) and other advocates of changing citizenship laws. As a foreigner who came into the USA legally and who married a beautiful Mexican lady, who is a lawyer, and also entered the USA legally, we were both Green Card holders when both of our children were born. They were born inside of the USA and were immediately considered American citizens. Thank you USA for giving my children United States citizenship without my wife or I having to go through countless government red tape!
No false premise here..
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:58pm.
it is not freedom over security, it is security within the boundries of the free society.
"What is Freedom with the actual and real threat of someone blowing up an airline over a crowded American city?" We are threatened every day, by muggers, car jackers, home invaders. By your premise, we should allow the government to monitor all of our lives, to make us safe.
"Nuclear bomb..." it could happen. I am all for "interrogating the hell" out of foreign nationals, just not US Citizens. But frankly, if we walk around in fear of a nuclear bomb, because the government tells us to, we are slaves.
"There can't be any Freedom if we do not have REAL security. The pretense of security is just that, a pretense and false." Hmm... there's real security in Cuba, do you want to live there? China? C'mon, this is a nonstarter. Freedom is NOT FREE.
"too many Americans who believe that our laws overide the duty of our nation to secure our Freedom from our enemies" I do believe that this argument was used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao.
"Are you saying that you are willing to sacrifice the life of innocent men, women and children in order to have a fake sense of Freedom" FAKE sense of freedom. I think you just told our soldiers, policemen, and citizens that they are fighting for nothing, is that right?
"If the United States of America did everything within its power to arrest this man and we were unable to...." um, the fact that they found him, and he wasn't killed in capture, means they didn't.
getting tiresome...
"An American citizen inside of the USA who is a clear and present danger to his/her local, State or Federal community will be killed if the authorities are unable to aprehend him. " Proof? Conviction? Immediate threat? Attempt at apprehension? Holding a hostage maybe? What? Look, the guy "probably" did bad things. Maybe you have, too. Should they kill you to make it easier on us?
And, as i said to Blonde... i think that you might be right, assuming you were here legally.
But i seriously urge you to go back and look at US history, and why the Constitution is as it is. A government given freedom to decide, without due process, is a government that WILL oppress. I would hate that you came here just to find a dictatorship in the making.
Welcome!
Retro, Thank you for your
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:28pm.
Retro,
Thank you for your insight. A few points...
it is not freedom over security, it is security within the boundries of the free society.
Well, then we agree. We both want TRUE freedom in our free society.
"What is Freedom with the actual and real threat of someone blowing up an airline over a crowded American city?" We are threatened every day, by muggers, car jackers, home invaders. By your premise, we should allow the government to monitor all of our lives, to make us safe.
When did I say that the government should monitor all of us? We are talking about a terrorist. Let's focus like a laser beam. We aren't talking about muggers, car jackers, home invaders. We are talking about terrorists. You are making huge leaps of logic that no one else talking about. Or are you comparing a terrorist to a mugger, car jacker?
"Nuclear bomb..." it could happen. I am all for "interrogating the hell" out of foreign nationals, just not US Citizens. But frankly, if we walk around in fear of a nuclear bomb, because the government tells us to, we are slaves.
So, you just called the victims of 9-11, New Yorkers and DCers, slaves because they walked around with the real threat of a nuclear bomb blowing up their city. Hmmm.. The government did not tell anyone, it was a real threat. I want a small government, but I am not adverse to government telling us of the dangers from foreign nations. I am all for interrogating the hell out of a foreign nantional who is a known terrorist and an American citizen who is a known terrorist. Care to tell me what is the differenence? That one has an American citizenship? and because of this you will allow an American citizen who may have key information about a terrorist plot to lawyer up and not communicate a threat?
I am glad you are so valiant as to give up your life for the rule of law, but I am not so valiant to as sacrifice the life of my children, my wife, parents, siblings, for the rule of law and I am not sorry in saying this. the rule of law means nothing to me when it comes to interrogating an American citizen who is a known terrorist who has information about a plot to blow up Chicago which would kill my family. Are you for a terrorist who is a leader of an American citizen and leader of a terrorist group to lawyer up and be able to plea the 5th and not say where the terrorist attack will take place in America? Thus, you are willing to sacrifice the life of countless for your misguided sense that the law is more important than the life of Americans. The law is not Godly, the end of all ends. The law, 9 times out of 10, is neither Just nor Merciful. These laws are man made and fallible.
"There can't be any Freedom if we do not have REAL security. The pretense of security is just that, a pretense and false." Hmm... there's real security in Cuba, do you want to live there? China? C'mon, this is a nonstarter. Freedom is NOT FREE.
Are you serious? There is real security in Cuban, China? LOL there exist no such thing in these nations. I am unsure what point you are trying to make other than attempting to manipulate emotions by naming Cuba and China. You might want to speak with actual Chinese and Cubans who have escaped out of those nations. Security is non-existant. LOL
"too many Americans who believe that our laws overide the duty of our nation to secure our Freedom from our enemies" I do believe that this argument was used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao.
Yeap, and so did Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Bush. are you comparing the latter to Hitler, Stalin, Mao? Again, you are using sensationalism to get your point across. It is not working.
"Are you saying that you are willing to sacrifice the life of innocent men, women and children in order to have a fake sense of Freedom" FAKE sense of freedom. I think you just told our soldiers, policemen, and citizens that they are fighting for nothing, is that right?
Eh? what are you talking about? Our soldiers do not sacrifice the life or innocent men, women and children in order to achieve their mission. In fact, our soldiers consistently restrain themselves in battle. Countless of brave American soldiers have lost their life in the fields of battle in Afghanistan and Iraq because there were innocent bystanders and they took precautions not to kill them. They understood this, do you?
And you seem to believe that Freedom is living in a free society with the daily threat of a mall being attacked, a car bomb going off in New York, Chicago and other cities. A plane being blown up over an American city in order to kill all on board and as many possible on the ground. Is this what you equate to Freedom? or, as you hinted at in your post, you think government is making this things up and anyone who believes them is a slave?
"If the United States of America did everything within its power to arrest this man and we were unable to...." um, the fact that they found him, and he wasn't killed in capture, means they didn't.
getting tiresome...
So, you are saying that you would have preferred that American soldiers die or be maimed for life in battle while attempting to capture a terrorist leader bent on destroying America because he had an American citizenship? The battle could have gone well and he would have been captured or really bad with countless American soldiers dead and the terrorist leader not captured. Or do you think that the terrorist leader would have raised his hands and given up when the soldiers showed up because you know, as an American citizen he would have followed the laws of the USA? c'mon now!
And you do not know if they first attempted to capture him or not, do you? Neither do I for that matter. But you are jumping to conclusions in order to make your sensationalist point. How do you know they didn't argue about capturing him or not? do you think the military did not draw up plans to capture him? But by the looks of it, you much rather have had a battle which would for sure maimed or killed American soldiers all in the name of American citizenship of a terrorist.
"An American citizen inside of the USA who is a clear and present danger to his/her local, State or Federal community will be killed if the authorities are unable to aprehend him. " Proof? Conviction? Immediate threat? Attempt at apprehension? Holding a hostage maybe? What? Look, the guy "probably" did bad things. Maybe you have, too. Should they kill you to make it easier on us?
Again, comparing apples to oranges! Bad things? Why do you minimize what this monster did and what he was planning to do? He wasn't planning on robbing a 7-11, or break into a home. Are you serious with these silly comparisons? Are you honestly saying that this terrorist leader was not an immediate threat to the United States of America? Do you honestly believe that if the United States military would have attempt to apprehend him, he would not have resisted arrest? And the guy "probably" did bad things? WOW!! really?
And, as i said to Blonde... i think that you might be right, assuming you were here legally.
Yes, I entered the USA legally and have always been here legally and I love this nation enough that I became an American citizen. However, I am also not a believer that the children of illegals who are born in the USA should pay for the crimes of their parents. Just like I am not a believer that a child conceived through rape or incest should pay with his/her life for the crimes of the father as pro-abortionist believe.
I have friends who their parents brought them illegally to the USA when my friend was merely two years old. They grew up in the USA, they went to schools in the USA. They never broke the law. Never did anything wrong. All they have done is be a productive member of this society. Should they be sent back to Mexico because their parents forced them to come to the USA illegally at the tender age of two?
In fact, you would give more rights to the terrorist leader who was bent to kill Americans and destroy Americans than the illegals who are illegal thanks to their parents not them who have never committed a crime in their life.
But i seriously urge you to go back and look at US history, and why the Constitution is as it is. A government given freedom to decide, without due process, is a government that WILL oppress. I would hate that you came here just to find a dictatorship in the making.
Again, a lot of sensationalism. A government's duty to due process can't be used to destroy the United States of America which is EXACTLY what Islamic terrorist want. They want to use our Constitution against us. Furthermore, if you do not like Obama decision, like I do not like countless of his other Presidential decisions, vote for the other guy in the coming elections.
Again, it was Abraham Lincoln who said that the Constitution should never be used as a weapon against the USA. He was smart enough to know that sometimes Habeas Corpus has to be eliminated. Or will you compare Lincoln to Hitler, Mao?
We are at war. This is not about capturing a common criminal as you kept on equating throughout your post. Your arguments would hold water if the military would have used its full might to kill a criminal, who is an American citizen, who fled the USA. There are legal as, more importantly, moral distinctions between a crime and an act of war. the latter is what cost the life of the terrorist leader with an American citizen, not the former!
And what is Moral, Right, True is 100% more important than what ever it is that the law says! The laws are meaningless if these are not Moral, Right and True. To follow the laws of a nation blindly is the true dictatorship.
Sorry, fut, I think you are wrong on two counts
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:12pm.
First, retro is arguing from a point of law....al Awlaki, as a U.S. citizen (even if I disagree with his citizenship)...is afforded Constitutional protections, including due process.
It is incumbent upon OUR government, in this instance, to ensure that his citizenship rights were removed before issuing a KILL order. OUR government cannot execute its citizens (again, I question AA's right to it, but the law says he was one) without due process.
I truly can't believe I am agreeing with Dr. Paul....but it is what it is. As someone said earlier (way up the thread)....'it was too "complicated" for the government'....so, they just said "go" and capped his ass.
The government didn't even try to sort out "too complicated". That is just wrong.
As to your last, fut....I am glad you are here, and a fellow citizen, as are your beautiful wife and kids.
BUT.
There is absolutely no reason for this nation to confer citizenship on the spawn of any fecund female who happens to drop a kid on our territory. Sorry. Not a tourist's kid. Not a kid of someone with a student visa. NO NO NO. Seriously, I'd rather adopt a pet.
The mere fact of physically being born within the borders of the United States of America, or one of its "territories" (embassies, etc.) should not automatically confer citizenship. Far from it. Citizenship in this country, for those who are not naturally born to parents who are citizens (or who have enjoined the journey to citizenship), IS A PRIVILEGE. It is not a right. It must be earned.
I truly believe we must consider our immigration policies, rationally and fairly. We, as a nation, need people with certain talents. We also have people here, who have earned citizenship, who need their families. WE MUST HAVE RATIONAL LAWS!!!!! And "anchor baby" isn't rational...it's an outdated unintended consequence of trying to "right" the results of slavery, which is now being exploited, to our detriment, and perhaps even more importantly, to the detriment to the poor and desperate people of the world who would sell their souls (children, bodies, etc.) to get the hell in the door.
Let me ask you something, Fut. If you had to choose, would you choose letting in a family member of yours, who had waited years and years, and gone through all of the legal hoops to get here....or would you choose the newborn of some tourist who took a "baby tour" to the US?
THAT is the choice.
It IS mutually exclusive.
Everyone who sneaks in, by hook or by crook....or..... people who have a reason to be here, by consensus of those of us who are citizens of this great republic. That is the question.....WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Government thought it was to complicated?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:15pm.
Wasn't this guy on a kill list for TWO YEARS with the greatest constitutional scholar/teacher acting as POTUS? And they couldn't figure out a legal way to get this done?
Exactly Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:23pm.
President Downgrade and his Criminal Attorney General have just wrapped their asses so badly around the axle that there will be no recovery.
Either Kalid Sheik Mohammed, a foreign terrorist, should be accorded all of the rights and privileges of citizenship, up to and including a trial in the Federal Court in New York City....including a team of over-paid attorneys who are paid on the taxpayer dime.....or, a bona fide citizen (who is accused of the same crime.....terrorism) is a "no-big-deal" target of assassination...by BIG BAD BARRY LED BY THE NAVY SEALS! (a la Bin Laden).
Which is it? Oh wait!!!! I know.
It all depends on what plays to the base, in Barry's bid for re-election. Nevah mind!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thats it Blonde*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:33pm.
Your post is exactly what I have been trying to say, you just did it better. Who wants this President or any President to have this kind of blood thirsty power? Who is next? This is a very complicated issue and I would like, as others, to see a much more comprehensive and fair discussion by our leadership. Holder and Obama have already shown themselves to be contradictory and hypocritical. What are their true motives?
Would the liberal media have ever allowed this hypocritical agenda and actions if the POTUS was a republican?
My questions do require a tin foil hat....sorry...;-)
De nada, Caj...pass the Aluminum Foil
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:53pm.
This is seriously upde-f'd.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'll raise you some Dramamine and call.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:59pm.
There is going to be so much flip-flopping over this issue in the next few months as the presidential campaign unfolds that I might have to put y'all on anti-vertigo drugs.
I'm continuallly amazed at the resoucefulness of
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:12am.
conservatives who can find a reason to hammer Obama no matter what the scenario.
He significantly increases our military footprint in Afghanistan and is accused of "mirandizing" the war against terrorism and making nice with terrorists. He gives the go ahead on liquidating bin Laden and is accused of not really wanting to do it, dallying for sixteen hours, and having to be talked into it by Panetta, or his national security advisors, or the military, or you name it. Obama orders this Islamic terrorist thug, Awlaki, to be disposed of, and the President is a tyrant and an unconscionable murderer of a US citizen.
In the meantime, Al Qaeda leadership is being wiped off the face of the earth and its capacity to inflict harm on America is being steadily diminished. Personally, I find that rather comforting.
Jer
sorta agree Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:15am.
Knowing Al Queda and Taliban are being severely damaged is great. But....I do not feel comfortable with the disregard for the laws and legislative process involved and the power being assumed by this administration. I will confess, I do not trust this man and his co conspirators..
I know, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:28am.
If only these guys were being eradicated by the trustworthy Republican Bush/Cheney team instead of the muslim Kenyan usurper of the oval office. ;-)
Jer
Come on, Caj!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:28am.
Obama can suspend "laws" whenever he feels like it.
Why not? WTF? Governance by Executive Order is the meme of the week. That pesky freakin' Congress and all that.
Next he'll be suspending elections.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I know Blonde*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:49am.
This has been one of the most interesting threads at NB for sometime. Very thoughtful and respectful posts with different views and lots of information. Truely have enjoyed this one. Thanks to everyone.
Since I spent a lot of energy "spamming" up a spam forum, cajun is tired. Will see you guys later...;-)
Well Jer, I have noticed
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:27am.
The US deaths are up, and the media is mum. I also noticed those pesky war fund bills were no obstacle as long as the pork reigned free.
I also noticed that even though we increased troops, the Generals are less sure about the out-come. Maybe the new RoE have something to do with it? Maybe it's because Obama could not care less, because he has better things to do?
But it's nice of you to notice
Excuse me, Jer
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:28am.
As I've said five or six times.....as much as I dislike the FACT.....al-Awlaki WAS a citizen of these United States.
Bin Laden, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed....no.
Obama gave the go order, to cap Bin Laden....rightly so. Good for him.
Yet, Obama and Holder, in some sorry-assed attempt to have a feel-good Kumbayah moment for the liberals in the land, attempted to haul KSM out of Gitmo, and put him in NY Federal Court (over the opposition of the citizens of NY).
So...Jer...which is it? Miranda and Constitutional Rights for Captured Terrorists? Or a Death Penalty for a CITIZEN of the U.S. who has not been Indicted?
It's pretty freakin' simple, IMO.
A "terrorist thug" al-Awlaki may be, but he WAS a citizen of this country. And he was deprived of his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, without any judicial review whatsoever. By THIS (our) government.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Dont you got Alabam tomorrow?
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:35am.
You better get some sleep Lady.
Good luck, we countin on ya!
Who does LSU play, Boudin?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:07am.
Jer
Kentucky
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:21am.
Poor Kentucky.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, is it KY that FLA has beaten
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:29am.
something like a hundred straight times?
Jer
Actually, It's Only 25.....
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:31am.
But who's counting?
Oh yeah, that would be me....SEVEN IN A ROW, Jer.
(Sorry, I know it's painful, but your Vols deserve it).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Revel in your pomposity...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:04am.
Pride goeth before the fall.
Jer
Yeah, yeah, yeah....
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:25am.
Dude.
The rules require that you are not allowed to whine about "wait until next year" or "we woulda beat you if we'd played later in the season" until at least NOVEMBER.
DEFEAT VOLS. This is your fate. Accept it. Embrace it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Count all ya want
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:30am.
ROLLTIDE!
And Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:37am.
Look at my posts. I dont care who is POTUS. No POTUS of any stripe should have this kind of power without going through the judicial and legislative process. Based on Obama's total disregard for that process by not having a budget for the last 2 years, scores of EO's to circumvent congress, printing money knowing the end result, giving billions of our money to avowed enemies have shown his true colors.
He makes me very nervous. If a R POTUS did the same thing, I would be just as nervous. And before you get started, Bush/Cheney worked hard to get judicial and legal clearances. Even had a "silent" federal judge issuing warrants and searches. At least they tried to follow the law when dealing with very unusual circumstances. Terrorists do not fit the model for "Geneva Convention" rules. Obama simply doesnt care or his is contradictory depending on which action makes him look good.
Is Obama's image more important than our laws? Is Obama's unknown agenda more important than our traditional foreign policy? This isnt about R or D Jer.
cajun....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:25am.
You don't think Bush ever circumvented Congress? Sorry, I just don't recall this website rocking with nervousness over it. Frankly, I wish Obama had circumvented Congress and made more recess judicial appointments. The unprecedented obstructionism by Republicans has caused the vacancies in the federal judiciary to become critical. And to which avowed enemies of the US has he given away billions? And why are we talking about this on this thread?
Jer
"unprecedented obstructionism"?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:34am.
YGTBSM.
Take of the liberal glasses, Jer. They make you look even dumber than most liberals are.
Seriously.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Excuse me, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:49am.
I was busy sending an email to your new leftist bud, Glenn Greenwald, to let him know he has some new fans at NB. Who knows, he may even be emboldened to reignite his call for putting Bush and Cheney in the dock.
Does YGTBSM mean You Get The Bull Shit Medal? [I'm really good at anagrams or whatever they're called.]
Jer
Hardly, Jer.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:56am.
So....now I lay me down to sleep....to see what you come up with in response to YOUR para, in which I changed one little word.
Since you are so overly fond of requiring EVERYONE else to know what you type on these threads, I shall hold you to the exact same standard.
Read, and reread my posts. I look forward to you squaring it all for me, when I awake tomorrow morning.
Either al-Awlki IS/WAS a citizen, based upon his birthright....or not. Whichever it is, Obama, who has the exact same circumstance of birth....IS RIGHT THERE TOO.
Which is it? Terminated the rights (i.e. to LIFE) of a non-citizen? Or violated the rights of a citizen? Can't be both, now, can it?
Sorry Jer....you and the rest of the liberals brought this one on yourselves.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Jer, Hmmm....do you want to
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:09pm.
Jer,
Hmmm....do you want to know how many judicial nominees Democrats did everything within their power to block?
and did you know that Democtrats big wigs, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, were caught passing a memo around saying that it was dangerous that Bush was nominating so many minority judges because it would look bad for Democrats?
Jer, this judicial stuff is done equally by both parties! and I agree with it. Further part of checks and balances.
To be honest, I just do not recall you being upset because Democrats were doing everything within their power to block Bush's judicial nominees. Start by looking up Miguel Estrada and how fiercely the Democtrats blocked him and they succeeded.
I have read the Left wing articles claiming that the Republican blocking of Obama's nominees is unprecedent. I am sorry, these website are not being honest. Look up how many nominees the Democratcs succesfully blocked that Regan nominated. This is NOT unprecedented.
Wow, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:03am.
Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional blogger with Salon.com, appeared on Democracy Now Friday morning to denounce the killing as a step beyond what President Bush had done. "If you are somebody that believes the President of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without a shred of due process," Greenwald said, "then you are really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets."
I never thought I would see you in the same corner with Greenwald, who literally wanted Bush and Cheney tried for war crimes and frog-marched into Leavenworth.
Unlike you, I don't think it's all that freakin' simple. [I delineated the two extremes of the issue in another post.] However, I would have no problem with KSM and other accused terrorists facing military tribunals and if found guilty being appropriately sentenced as the members of the tribunals determined. As far as Awlaki, the case falls within the gray area I alluded to in the earlier post. But, I sided with Bush/Cheney with respect to aggressive anti-terrorist policies during the previous administration, erring on the side of security concerns. That remains my view.
Besides, I understand Awlaki was born to an American mother and an African father and never produced a US birth certificate authenticated by the WorldNetDaily. So, he may not have even been an American citizen.
Jer
Oh Jer!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:13am.
You've gone and done it now!!!
Besides, I understand OBAMA was born to an American mother and an African father and never produced a US birth certificate authenticated by the WorldNetDaily. So, he may not have even been an American citizen.
Oops!!!!!!!!!!! Oops!!!!!!!!!!! Oops!!!!!!!!!!!
Double, Triple, Freakin' A Billion Zillion OOPS there, Jer.
(I changed ONE.....ONE little word in your para, there, fella).
HOW COMPLICATED IS IT NOW?
P.S. I couldn't hardly care less about what some freakazoid liberal thinks.....Just because there may be some semblance on agreement on one part of an issue has nothing to do with anything else....so don't even try THAT. Good Lord, Jer. Lame-O.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Jer, There is a point that
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:06pm.
Jer,
There is a point that Liberals need to answer. You and I both know that if Bush were the one that killed this terrorist leader who was an American citizen, the Left, the Media would be going crazy. They would be calling for impeachment. There would be 24/7 coverage on all the news channels of Liberal politicians, Liberal commentators, Liberal pundits telling viewers how evil Bush is for killing an American citizen without due process.
During Bush's 8 years all we heard from countless of Liberals, Left wingers, Democrat pundits and politicians was how the terrorist deserved due process. Did we not?
Now, we have Obama kill an American citizen without the beloved due process of Liberals and there are some rumblings, but if we are honest, no where near what it would have been if Bush had done it. Why? As you have probably read, I agree with Obama on this one and with Bush's actions during his 8 years. But 99% of the Liberals who complained about Bush's allegedly circumventing the law are now silent on Obama's actions. Yes, the usual radical Left wingers who are anti-war, anti-American suspects inside of the USA are pimping up and speaking against this action. But there isn't anywhere near the screaming at the top of their lungs condemnation from the Left, Liberals who screamed for due process to be given to terrorists under Bush.
Maybe in the next couple of weeks all of the people on the Left, all the Liberals, all the Democrats who were claiming that Bush broke the law for not giving due process to the terrorist will due the same, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
However, all the above being said, I will repeat myself, due process, habeas corpus as Abraham Lincoln believed cannot be used by our enemies who wage and would wage war against the USA, whether they are American citizens or not, to destroy the USA. We must be much smarter than that. The law is not the end all be all, even though lawyers seem to believe that. :-)
"You and I both know that if
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:50pm.
"You and I both know that if Bush were the one that killed this terrorist leader who was an American citizen, the Left, the Media would be going crazy. "
I already had this conversation with Jer, Liberallies. He insists that there is an "outrage" among the left.
Good luck.
Really?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:58pm.
Was Jer outraged?
Blonde, to be honest, I
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:40pm.
Blonde,
to be honest, I would chose the life of the baby who was born through a mother who just wanted USA citizenship for her child.
My family member can wait. The life of the new born is 100% much more important. And I can assure you that all of my family members would understand if it ever came to that extreme.
I agree with you that immigration laws must be fixed. They are a disaster! No doubt about it. But we cannot punish the new borns of people who break our laws. New borns are the most important and most vulnerable human beings on Earth whether inside of the USA or any nation. Why not give them a head start by giving them the most important citizenship in the world? (Well, it will remain that way only if we defeat Obama in Nov. 2012).
I do not believe that the 25 year old man/woman who is illegal because his/her parents brought him/her to the USA illegally at the age of two should pay for the crimes of their parents.
Hey, if you come into the USA illegally and you are 18 or over, tought luck. Go back. If you over stayed your visa and you are 18 or over, tough luck, go back. If you break the law as an illegal, tough luck, serve your time and then go back. But if you were brought to the USA illegally at the age of two and you have lived a productive, sane, normal life in the USA, why should we punish these individuals?
Rational and Logical laws are not always humane. We must balance the two. We can't have rational and logical laws that treat other human beings who are not guilty of anything in an inhumane way.
18 and over, you came in illegally, broke the law as an illegal, yes, deport them. Send them back. I agree. But 17 and under, you were forced to come in with your parents. That is a completely different story. I refuse to punish the kids of anyone for any crime that their parents committed.
I understand, Fut
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:52pm.
But I still disagree.
We must remove the "anchor baby" incentive. Seriously, there is "citizenship tourism". Without the lure of anchor baby status, that would stop. As would all the misery of human trafficking across our southern border that goes along with it (THAT is appalling, and for another post another day).
The illegal parents of these babies can take them right back home with them. We're not demanding that the baby stay. The choice is not aborting these babies, or killing them. It's removing them, with their parents, to their country of origin.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Those who have this lynching mentality shouldn't be
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:08am.
be calling others who support the civilized "due process" doctrine "knuckle draggers."
Civilized society came down from the trees and established a rule of law with courts and the entire judicial process didn't come about overnight and you want us to climb back up into the trees?
Who's knuckles are dragging?
You want to destroy what Washington, Adams and Madison and the rest of the founders gave us to live our lives free from government thuggery? You cheer this sort of barbaric behavior! What is wrong with you? To much Hannity or too much Rush?
No. Too many Loon fart bubbles.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:41am.
Sprained your neck trying to catch your own fart bubbles again Loon?
Awlaki simple commited suicide.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:38pm.
He declared war on America; That is menacing,
He refused to put down his weapons and surrender, so the CIA cops granted his obvious wish to be dead.
He commited suicide-by-cop. Suicide-by-cop perps vary rerely make it to trial.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Except...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:54pm.
they didn't even attempt to stop him or arrest him.
They didn't attempt to capture him.
They put him on a "hit list" and killed him.
He wasn't tried.
He wasn't indicted.
he wasn't sentenced.
He was simply spotted and killed.
While i have no problem with that against enemies of the state who are NOT US Citizens. I have a big problem with it against our Citizens.
After all, WHO DECIDES WHO is an enemy of the state???
Anwar, or Achmed the dead terrorist,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:27pm.
was a fleeing felon, having taken up arms against the U.S. and committing treason or rebellion against the U.S. As such, he was a clear and present danger to citizens of the U.S., and anyone was justified in killing his worthless, terrorist ass.
That said, I too note the hypocrisy of the left in their reaction to this.
Look....
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:18pm.
I am glad that this scumbag is dead, but you are deluding yourself.
He was NOT a fleeing felon, we did not try to apprehend him.
He was NOT convicted of treason or rebellion against the U.S.
He was not indicted for those crimes or any crime for that matter.
He was a US Citizen, probably one i would love to have seen fried, who was put on a "hit list" and then shot from a distance, without any attempt to negotiate, apprehend, or capture.
What happens when they decide that tea party, NRA members, who oppose abortion are threats to the U.S.???
That said, i agree that the press is showing hypocrisy. But so are we on the right, if we don't call out the violations of the constitution.
As Gus McCrae said---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:10pm.
"Some people just need killin".
Ol' Al may not have been a fleeing felon; we may not have tried to apprehend him; he may not have been convicted of treason or rebellion against the U.S, and he may not have been indicted for those crimes or any crime; but he is DEAD.
Despite all the angst over possible future governmental actions; all the worrying about what may, might, or could happen down the line, it is irrelevant to the fact that ol' Al bit the Big One.
As far as the concern that "if they did it once, they can do it again", well, keep an eye on 'em.
Don't let them do it again.
MD
He probably did...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:02pm.
But it wasn't the right of the US government to do it.
And if once they start, it's really difficult to make them stop.
There's always a new boogyman.
Ok, then, if it was not right of the U.S.---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:00am.
government to do it, do you have a proposal in mind to prevent such a thing ever happening again?
Along the lines, say, of passing a law making homicide a crime? As far as I know, once that law hit the books, murder was forever a thing of the past.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic; and yes, the government can turn into an unstoppable behemoth - 30,000 plus pages of the Income Tax Code jumps immediately to mind.
"There's always a new boogyman".
Indeed; and the new boogyman always arises as a result of the various imperfections found in mankind. That will not likely change.
That said, retrocon, you have put forth a very thoughtful presentation of your views, threadwise; and while I don't necessarily agree with you on the specific issue relating to the killing of a dangerous person because there were 'transgressions or avoidance of' legal statutes; I can respect why you have concerns.
Our government is made up of people, and it is not only no longer trustworthy in many areas, it is also becoming quite scary.
MD
You should brush up on the fleeing felon law.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:36am.
One doesn't have to "try to apprehend him". He doesn't have to be convicted of anything to be a fleeing felon, he doesn't have to be indicted for anything to be a fleeing felon. And no one has to negotiate with a fleeing felon. He just has to have committed a felony, and I think we can agree that taking up arms against the US is a felony?
i just note, with amusement, some have maintained that Al Awlaki used a Yemeni passport to travel, which would indicate that he's a citizen of Yemen, not the US, and yet Obama is alleged to have traveled to Pahk-ee-stahn on an Indonesian passport, thereby making him a citizen of Indonesia, not the US, and they maintain the Obama isn't a citizen but Al Awlaki is.
War is hell retrocon*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:37pm.
Were these men read their rights?
Were these men indicted on charges?
Were these men given a trial?
http://www.kenpittman.com/content_images/2/WTC%205%20man%20falling.jpg
Or would you prefer the WAR be brought back home as well..
..
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/26/coffins4...
Does anyone hear Yemen protesting his death?
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:45pm.
I can imagine that with all of the discord and civil strife that country is experiencing, Yemen is probably saying good riddance to bad rubbish. He probably was stirring up trouble for that country, and certainly that was trouble they did not want.
Right now, my home city of San Antonio is quite worried that the Mexican drug cartel violence will spill over from the border areas down along the (Rio Grande) valley up towards larger metro areas. Houston is similarly frightened, considering that we are both major transportation access hubs in one way or another. The Texas/Mexico border is one big hotspot that concerns me far more than the Middle East at this point. The real possibility of Mexico slipping into anarchy akin to the late 19th century situation is alarming, and of course no politician will touch that third rail for fear of losing any Latino support. Most non-Mexican Latinos in Texas want the laws enforced, but you never hear that in the mainstream media.
Doc Sam
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:58pm.
Druge posted that in Acapulco or nearby teachers were told they had to give the cartels half their salary. Schools were shut down as teachers were to scared to go to work. More decapitations have been occurring. Has any of this been covered on the MSM? Because I haven't seen it, and I think it's a huge story seeing as we share the border with Mexico.
These stories are being covered here in Texas.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:11pm.
Due to the proximity and the number of Mexicans living in Texas, it gets some very close coverage. Some of the news reporters and papers down along the border have done some truly heroic work with regards to covering these stories, and nobody knows how many deaths have actually occurred on either side of the border. What worries us most is the potential for spillover violence and the potential for terrorism emanating from the drug cartels similar to the threats that were described from the cocaine cartels in the 80s and 90s.
A very good friend of mine lives in a border town with his beautiful wife and six children (hey...they're devout Catholics!). He practices in family medicine and works an ER in a hospital than handles at least two or three gunshot cases a night. In medical slang, ERs that receive a lot of weapons trauma cases are called "knife and gun clubs". His knife and gun club erupted into total anarchy one night when a rival gang tried to storm the place. Luckily he was not on duty that night, but he made the decision to move his family north to live in San Antonio out of real fear that he or his family might be kidnapped or harmed in some other way. How can you blame a guy for wanting to protect his family? The hospitals he served pleaded with him and threw a ton of money at him to get him to stay, but no professional should ever have to fear for their life the way those working along the US:Mexico border are at the moment. It just keeps getting worse. We were able to work with our church to get him emergency funds to move his practice so he can work in a nice area of central Texas not too far from where we live. It's a 200+ mile insurance policy for his family.
I would not be surprised if Mexico were to do down in anarchy, given the government's inability to control some of the northern states bordering the US.
cajun
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:09pm.
i think i've enjoyed your posts in the past, but you are wrong this time.
personally, i will not give up my freedom for a little sense of security.
If you read the many posts i've made today on this subject you will see two things:
I am all for "whacking" people like Osama bin Laden
I am all for "enhance interrogation" against non-citizens
But you will also see, that when a US Citizen is involved, i believe that you MUST respect the US Constitution. If you don't, then what are you protecting?
No, the victims of 9/11 were not read their rights. But the perpetrators were not US Citizens, either. If they were, i would, in fact, demand that the attempt be made.
I do NOT demand battlefield rights, if you read my previous posts, you would see that if a US Citizen is killed in battle against US forces, i'm ok with that.
But we violated the 5th amendment in putting a US Citizen on a kill list without due process.
Just as we almost violated it with Padilla under Bush.
You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in our Constitution or you believe that the POTUS can decide who is "evil" and go kill them without due process. There is no "in between."
sorry, dude.
Retro*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:25pm.
I totally agree with your arguments. This is a very complex issue.. For one, I certainly do not want any President to have independent power to "assasinate" home grown or foreign enemies without proper authorization. Obama's actions recently are of great concern to me.. First, he supports the Muslim Brotherhood, gives Billion of taxpayer money to Hamas, rewrites our foreign policy without proper legislative action, starts an illegal war, pays billions of taxpayer money as "bribes" to allow us to bomb sites in other countries.
All of this are signs that should create great fear among US citizens. Al Awaki is not the issue, only the bait for Obama fishing in our judicial and legislative systems to see how much power he can assume with no one questioning him.
As far as Bin Ladin and Al Awaki, they are soldiers who have declared war even though they do not wear a uniform of a foreign government, they are still the enemy.
We need to review all our policies on dealing with terrorists. I believe Obama once promised to close Gitmo and Holder argued to charge the enemy in American courts.
Nothing has changed except 6000 more dead Americans.
Oh and Retro...since I am never wrong, I apologize for not clarifying my earlier posts....;-)
Well, a few of us conservatives...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:00pm.
suffer from the condition of never being wrong ;-)
you, me, Rush ...
But seriously, the thing that most are missing is that there is a difference between Bin Laden and Al Awaki... one was not a citizen, the other was.
We cannot infringe on a citizens rights. Can we kill them? Sure, we do it all the time... in the course of due process (arrest, indictment, conviction, sentence).
Do i want US protections for foreign combatants??? Absolutely not! Keep Gitmo open, keep up the interrogations, don't try a non-US Citizen in US courts!
But this US Citizen (assuming he is one), no matter how evil, was put on a kill list and then executed with zero due process.
That should scare us all.
What's the difference between him and someone else who disagrees with the government?
"What's the difference
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:02pm.
"What's the difference between him and someone else who disagrees with the government?"
I'm sorry, did you just compare a person who disagrees with Obama's policies with Anwar al Awlaki, a man who has killed and was planning on killing Amerians????
Umm...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:07pm.
and when was Al Awlaki convicted? even indicted?
And no, i am not comparing them, but when you give the government the ability to make the decision, without due process of law, as to who should live and who should die, they might!
Ok, well let me ask you then.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:15pm.
Ok, well let me ask you then. How should it have been handled?
No cracks or quips, I really want to know what you think could have been done differently.
Easy...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:08pm.
If we knew where he was, we send in a strike force. Local or US. We disable the vehicle, or try to. We track him from the drone that killed him. If he resists, we kill him, but that's the same for anyone resisting capture.
But the point wasn't ONLY that we killed him intentionally and without trial, proof, conviction, it's also that we put him on a "hit list" to be killed, and then killed him. And, he was, according to reports a US Citizen...
We literally put a hit out on an US Citizen who was not convicted of a crime, and then killed him deliberately, without any due process to even get a grand jury to indict him.
Let me ask you, does that describe YOUR USA?
Priceless!!! If what you
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:14pm.
Priceless!!! If what you described is "EASY", in your words, you don't seem to understand much about how those things work. I guess as long as you are not the one that has to actually go and do it, it is easy for you. Personally, I have no problem sending a drone in and not risk the lives of U.S. servicemen and women unnessecarily.
"Let me ask you, does that describe YOUR USA?"
Yes.
EASY was about the question
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:50pm.
Easy was in reference to finding the answer, not the answer itself.
I've served. I am assuming you have at least been in public service as a civilian, seeing your handle.
It's the duty of all who serve in the US to uphold the constitution. The day that the CIA or SEALs or cops are sent to kill a US Citizen, instead of to apprehend them, is the day that we have lost our freedoms.
I know members of SEALs, SWAT, and other special operators, and not one of them would shirk their responsibilities to try to capture this dirtbag. And not one of the ones that i know would execute a blatant kill order against a US Citizen. Ever hear of Oath Keepers?
Sorry, i'm sure that you haven't based on your argument.
Oh...
Submitted by retrocon on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:02am.
although a little out of shape in my old age, i would go in a minute if called back to duty.
But in questioning me, you show your own ignorance.
Ah, I see. Questioning YOU
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:57pm.
Ah, I see. Questioning YOU makes me ignorant? That's quite an ego you have. Considering your thoughts on this subject, I'm quite happy to be called ignorant by someone like you.
Missed that last line there!
Submitted by retrocon on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:09am.
Oops, so your USA is one that will assassinate it's own citizens, as identified by the president as a threat, without due process of law?
Wow. You really would like Cuba, or China, dude.
retrocon...your allegiance to civil liberties for terrorists is
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 6:37pm.
admirable.
You are aware, are you not, that American citizens served in the Wehrmacht during World War II. Should they have been apprehended and arrested by the 82nd Airborne and brought back to the US for trial, or tried in absentia, lest they might become a battlefield casualty at our hands without due process? Should we have asked Hitler to provide a list of all putative American citizens fighting on his behalf so we could meticulously avoid summarily inflicting harm on those individuals resulting in a peremptory abrogation of their constitutional protections as US citizens? The idea is preposterous.
Of course, we were in a state of a traditional and conventional war declared by Congress against Germany. But against whom then should war be or have been declared as we confront global terrorism? The United Islamic State of Al Qaeda? The Glorious Talibanese Union of Anti-Great Satanists? The Principality of Death to America Praise Allah-land? That is equally preposterous.
So the Awlaki case turns on the character and extent of his belligerent activities on behalf of an enemy which issued a fatwah against the US over a decade ago--not some immutable right of constitutional due process afforded an ordinary American citizen, or to any American citizen regardless of the circumstances. And that is the factual determination which controls the legality of our government's military response to a terrorist who wants to kill us. And that is the determination which was made and implemented in this instance.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 9:17pm.
Excellent post.
Just damned excellent.
MD
Agree with Matthew Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 9:29pm.
This issue has been rather disturbing to me for several days now. With Jer and The Vet posting information on the various aspects of this issue, I am now more comfortable with the decision. I still don't like nor trust Obama but I can now at least, understand our defense personnel and their decision making a lot better.
Thanks to all who provided accurate and meaningful information on this subject. God Bless our Troops.
Hell has officially frozen over.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 9:31pm.
.
Rad....
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:10am.
Don't worry. It's officially unfreezing farther down the thread. Everything will be completely back to normal soon enough.
But many thanks to both Matthew and cajun for the kind words.
Jer
Well said Jer...very well
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 7:44pm.
Well said Jer...very well said!
Thanks, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 8:40pm.
I appreciate the compliment.
Jer
And yours is one that would
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:58pm.
And yours is one that would see thousands of innocent people slaughtered so you can pat yourself on the back and feel good about being so "centered".
I thank God people that think like you are not in charge. Really.
I haven't read through the thread but.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:28am.
1. Habius corpus is not guaranteed at all times.
2. S. J. Res. 23
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
We Are The 53%
The great part of our country...
Submitted by retrocon on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:47am.
The great part of our country is that laws that conflict with the US Constitution are not valid, and cannot supersede the rights protected.
So, legally, this law cannot be interpreted as superseding our fifth amendment rights.
Now, if they want to pass an amendment, that's another story.
I think the SCOTUS would probably agree with me, otherwise, where is the value of a Constitution that has no meaning. Frankly, the "out" in this for the citizen is that it says "international terrorism," which can be interpreted to be by non-US Citizens. If it were a US Citizen, then it would be "domestic terrorism."
Consider, if a simple law can supersede the constitution, regarding our fundamental rights (not that it hasn't already, gun control is a good example), no one is safe.
No, i prefer to believe that gun control and similar examples just haven't been tested properly as yet. I'm not ready to cede that the government can do whatever it wants to US Citizen, in the name of "security of the state."
That, my friend, would be the end of the republic.
You can vociferously argue your point all you want.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:31pm.
It was legal. And this President we all know is a failure in every other respect is in the right to target people that have declared war on our citizens.
Do us all a favor and kindly stop. Point out the line in the constitution that says our President cannot take out people using every means at their disposal to kill the citizens of this country.
And I do mean line. The constitution is around 5000 words. So you don't have much to play with. So at best you might have a line or two devoted to back up your point. The United States Constitution is a document that lays out the framework for this government. It ain't a cloak to wrap around yourself every single time you don't like the actions of the man in charge.
Obama's Presidential Assassination Policy
Submitted by Retired Geek on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:22pm.
Barack Obama has already started his "Presidential Assassination Program" and there is barely a peep, mention or a protest.
Granted Anwar al-Awlaki is a despicable Human being and worthy of the most extreme 'Justice' available, but he is an American Citizen.
The keyword is 'JUSTICE' and NOT an order from the President of the United States to the CIA to kill him, without even an official indictment, approval from Congress or a trial by jury and judge.
Who is next you, me or the organizer of a 'Tea Party' protest rally?
Thus, 'Enemies of the State' as determined by Barack Obama are summarily ordered executed, even if they are American Citizens.
This is the same "Legal" power utilized in NAZI Germany and Communist Russia and was NOT protested by the Citizens of those two Countries because they were in agreement.
The same President who wants battlefield combatants 'Mirandized' to protect the rights of the terrorists who are NOT American Citizens, has now ordered the assassination of an American Citizen based on 'Just' the judgment of Barack Obama
RG...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:56pm.
Well said!!!!
Agree!
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:32am.
How much do you want to be that the Aging Commie Leftover Union (ACLU) doesn't say a word?
Dennis Prager
Agree
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:32am.
Agree
Dennis Prager
Ruh roh!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:50pm.
I think Barry misunderstood Jimmy Hoffa, they should have a chat.
After reading all the
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:54am.
After reading all the excellent comments in this thread (that does not include the libturd postings) I have somewhat mixed feelings about this.
I am glad that the POS in no longer walking the face of this Earth plotting to kill innocent people, but like retrocon and others I do not like the fact that a US Citizen, which he sadly was because of the idiotic "Anchor Baby cr@p, was targeted for death by our Government.
And before you libturds start screeching I would feel the same way if the person in the White House issuing the order had an "R" after their name.
The libturds were always squawking on how Pres Bush was "shredding the Constitution" (even though he wasn't) but are completely ignoring how this criminal Administration is shredding it, mixing it with gasoline and looking for a match.
Libturds are nothing but hypocrites.
right there with ya Scoob
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:10pm.
I had read once, possibly it was Mark Levin, asserted that the War Powers Act was unconstitutional. And even then, Obama still managed to wipe his feet on it, and keep walking when necessary for going into Libya. It's hard to have a warm fuzzy about that much power in the hands of one man.
On the other hand I am happy the guy is dead. I mean.. he was trying to contrive ways of hiding explosives inside human beings and use them as living bombs. That is sick and evil and if that isn't asking to be killed, I don't know what is.
It's a tough one. One that I will have to leave at the feet of people more knowledgable about Constitutional law than myself.
Ditto scooby and kata*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 3:24pm.
Agree with both of you.
Tell me, Scuba, to whom are you referring as "libturds"?...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:32pm.
because as far as I can tell I'm the only one who has posted on this thread who admits to being a Democrat--and who has for the sake of convenience acquiesced in being labeled a "liberal"--which suggests you may have me in mind. And, if that is the case, your post is a pile of dung.
Jer
Don't sweat it Jer
Submitted by buttercup815 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:44pm.
Libturds is just a generic term used by conservatives that apply to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them. Don't take it personal.
Don't sweat it troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:51pm.
Troll is just a generic term that applies to trolls that troll when they troll. I forget, are you outed on this account and acting your true self or are you still in the closet? Because you did have the British spelling before or no.... wait, you pointed out the guy with the British spelling. Oh who knows, here is an idea. Take off for a while again and let one of your sock puppet accounts smart off until it is banned then show up again. Whatever. Don't take it personal. Jer and I are still on our first accounts.
First accounts?
Submitted by buttercup815 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:59pm.
Really, cause you sound remarkably like some guy named JWF..and even further back realamericanPVC. But that's just me, long memory and all.
actually
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:06pm.
I just discovered recently you can change your account sign in name on the Edit page. Of course, that still attaches you to all your previous posts back to the point where NB was wiped.
Iz juzza lurker mizzer. Notta troll. Honex. Croz both heartz.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:15pm.
Iz juzza lurker mizzer.
Yeah, the guy with the 25 week account remembers me changing my name last December, 44 weeks ago. And it is a name change troll. Your first clue, my account name on my tracking page....
>>>> http://www.newsbusters.org/user/JWF/track <<<<<
Still on my first account. What number did you say you were on again?
Zzzz---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:54pm.
inger !!
MD
Vet...This many*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 6:43pm.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/16/scarborough-tea-pa...
I can't read Scoob's mind
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:58pm.
but I re-read his post and didn't see the name "Jer" in there anywhere.
And, you're not liberal?
Well, bk...reread my post...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:18pm.
and tell me who else Scoob could have possibly had in mind? Unless I overlooked a comment or am mistaken about the other posters, everyone else on this thread who had posted his or her opinion at the time of my post above claims to be a conservative. But, I am open to correction.
For the zillionth time, I consider myself a centrist Democrat--a little left of center on the ideological spectrum--which apparently to most here places me in the liberal camp. So, I don't make a big deal of it.
Jer
I don't know Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:24pm.
I haven't read each comment on the thread, and it's too long now for me to do so (I've got a 5-10 comment limit cause my head starts to hurt after that) but I haven't seen Scoob go after you personally in the past. Then again, maybe I missed something.
I'm only 45 (for a few more days); what's a centrist Democrat? Not sure I've heard that term before...
bk...unless I inadvertently skipped one, I HAVE read every
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:43pm.
comment on the thread. That's why I asked Scoob the question. He's gone after me personally a couple of times, but nothing really vicious, and as far as I know there is no bad blood between us.
What would you consider JFK?
Jer
JFK?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 7:13pm.
The end of an era.
Jer, Jer & Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:39pm.
Well, bk...reread ** my ** post...
and tell ** me ** who else Scoob could have possibly had in mind? Unless ** I ** overlooked a comment or am mistaken about the other posters, everyone else on this thread who had posted his or her opinion at the time of ** my ** post above claims to be a conservative. But, ** I ** am open to correction.
For the zillionth time, ** I ** consider myself a centrist Democrat--a little left of center on the ideological spectrum--which apparently to most here places ** me ** in the liberal camp. So, ** I ** don't make a big deal of it.
The last sentence is a hoot, too. Jer makes not exactly a small deal out of he/him/Jer/"ya know, the centrist, for the zillionth time" rushing to assume it's him being scoobs' primary target, and then ends his qua-zillionth me-me-why-me??-stop-stop with.... "I don't make a big deal of it."
Jer, this song would have to be yours and all liberals eternal anthem.
- shy on the wax
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I know, Shy....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:45pm.
It's all about me, me, me! Let's move on.
Jer
Day-um, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:53pm.
You really DO identify with Obama.
MD
Only that we're both golf fanatics.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 6:04pm.
But then so is Scoob.
Jer
The President has the authority to kill terrorists.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:59am.
Be they U.S. citizen or not.
+++
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
+++
The president's decision to add Anwar al-Awlaki to the list of al Qaeda operatives that the military and/or the CIA can target for attack is, therefore, hardly surprising. The fact that al-Awlaki is a U.S. national makes no difference. Americans who join in armed hostilities against the United States are enemy combatants. They are subject to attack, capture, and detention pursuant to the law of armed conflict, just like any other enemy combatant who is not a citizen. This was established in the World War II "Nazi saboteur" case, Ex parte Quirin (1942), in which the Supreme Court approved the trial by military commission of eight German agents, at least one of whom was an American citizen. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this basic principle more recently in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), in which it approved the capture and detention (without criminal charge or trial) of an American who was taken fighting with the Taliban.
In both cases, the court invoked the law of armed conflict. It is this body of law in particular that permits U.S. forces to attack, without warning or any effort to capture, enemy combatants including al-Awlaki. Enemy combatants are not criminal suspects and the U.S. military is not a police force that must first attempt to effect an arrest before using deadly force. The only limitations on the use of force against such individuals involve the basic principles of distinction (forbidding direct attacks on civilians) and proportionality (requiring that the likely collateral damage to civilians from a military operation is justified by its overall objective). The use of technologically innovative instruments, such as remote-controlled drones, in no way violates these well-settled rules. Indeed, technology has long been a handmaiden of war. As a matter of law, drones are no different from aerial bombs, artillery shells, bullets, or bayonets.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/07/the-american-terrorist-...
+++
Is that why the President keeps defaming the Tea Party?
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:23am.
Carry your conclusion to the bottom of the slippery slope. That means that the President can declare a faction a threat and send in troops to take them out? Oops, I forgot about the Branch Davidian. I guess Reno WAS justified in her actions? She just didn't use the military? All the stuff you cite had some sort of court involvement. Was that done in this case? Otherwise, you MUST call the President a "rogue President" like the foaming left did with President Bush. This is the problem with liberal thinking. It just is never applied the same way twice.
I am looking forward to military action against the Tea Party using your rationale and the logic of the liberal.
Dennis Prager
You are making a mistake.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 7:13am.
Those are not my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the Congress of the United States, John Yoo, David B Rivkin Jr, and Lee A. Casey.
Dude. Every word of everything I posted above came from someone way way way smarter than me. The only thing that came from me was the subject line.
Do I need to point out who John Yoo is and what David Rivkin Jr is currently doing?
I am sorry. The President had the power to take out watzhisface in Yemen. It was lawful. Please don't take it out on me just because I find the people that can explain it and post some of their work here. Follow the links and read the whole of the two articles. The President had the lawful right to do what he did and any amount of hate we have for him will not erase that.
Edit. I am confused sir. You seem to be of the opinion that we were right to take out the terrorist elsewhere here. Why the slippery slope post directed at me, the guy that brought forward the reason it was lawful for the President to take out the terrorist?
Edit number two. "All the stuff you cite had some sort of court involvement." Dude, no. The cited SUPREME COURT decisions were listed as why we CAN GO AFTER AMERICAN CITIZENS in the GWOT. Wow.
Good morning Vet
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 8:32am.
This sos was Benedict Arnold in an arab suit.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good Lord...Waco again, and the implicit defense of
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:54pm.
the murdering rapist and child abusing self-described Messiah David Koresh who fulfilled his grotesque prophesy by deliberately incinerating the members of the sect which he had bamboozled into deifying him. Read the Danforth Report, the most exhaustive independent investigation of the tragedy to date. Damn right Reno was justified. Koresh was the killer, not Reno.
Jer
Jer, the tru-coat salesman. Not quite up-to-date.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 6:59pm.
Keep pushing it, my taxes helped pay for that and it's still rusted out.yt1:45
Were O' were are those smarmy glowing accolades for Republican Danforth ....spewed forth from the keyboard of DEMOCRAT Jer... Oh yea lost back there in NB-1 land.
Typical style of yours , lock onto the past, factoid bender, la de da skip later data, YAWN ., OPPS this.
So far, the government has only moved the line of defense -- admitting that it did use pyrotechnic devices the day the Davidians' Mount Carmel church compound burned down, killing nearly 80 men, women and children.
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the government was not only responsible for the fatal fire that swept through the church compound, but that it suppressed an attempt to control it and that it fired on Davidians attempting to escape the fiery holocaust.
You Didn't Build That.
UCW...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 7:26pm.
You and I have butted heads with each other every time this issue has come up during all the years we both have been here, and I'm certain we will continue to do so in the future when it comes up again, as it surely will. And I'm reasonably certain that I will never change your mind and you will never change mine.
Jer
And the difference is clear. Liberals love to lie, & Hate guns
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 12:47pm.
The old way of monopolizing the news, MSM style is going away.
Flushing the FACTS as they come to light, just doesn't work the way it used to or the way you want it to.
Dick Morris Reveals Bombshell on Waco Massacre and Janet Reno2010.
Sure Waco was a long time ago. The same spirit still operating today.
Same mentality and another democratic administration is using ATF to walk guns over the border, given away/sold to kill people and PASS THE BLAME, once again to crazy white guys.
Operation Fast And Furious
Operation Fast And Furious NB forum
Now the internet is here unlike the days of Waco.
Eric Holder caught lying to Darrell Issa , commits Perjury - Operation Gun Runner Fast and Furious
Looking forward to you defending the O'bama, as you rabidly defend clinton. NOT
You Didn't Build That.
Good grief, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:15pm.
What the hell does Fast and Furious have to do with Waco? Deflect much? You can rely on the debauched word of the professional political mercenary and pathological Clinton-hating Dick Morris to your heart's content. You can implicitly defend the sick, child abusing rapist, religious charlatan and weapons fanatic Koresh and parade preposterous fables as fact as much as you wish. You can continue to embrace ideologically-inspired fantasies if it satisfies some inner need of yours. Me...I'll stick to the actual and convincingly accurate details of the Davidian tragedy as they were meticulously adduced by the Danforth commission after an exhaustive investigation covering many months and the testimony of hundreds of witnesses.
Jer
BTW...If I hated guns, I wouldn't own one. And, I'm an expert shot.
As you said in an earlier post, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 10:08pm.
it is unlikely either you or upcountry will change each other's minds when it comes to the Waco tragedy - fiasco.
I really don't see, however, your accusation of upcountry 'implicitly' defending a sick, child abusing rapist like Koresh, as being in any way valid.
I see "Deflect much?" though, as a pertinent question about your reply post to upcountry.
In past discussions you have always spit appropriate vitriol at Koresh, but, as a typical Democrat attempting to either deny or avoid altogether the blame attached to Reno and Clinton, you spin like a top regarding the report by the Danforth commission.
Your statement "Me...I'll stick to the actual and convincingly accurate details - meticulously adduced - exhaustive investigation -- "
I've stated before that the Danforth Report was nothing more than a bunch of federal bureaucrats who either oversaw or were hands on during the Waco fiasco, covering their collective asses.
You know, Jer; the group that made up such a large number of those 'witnesses'.
Yes, Danforth was a Republican; but when a Democrat has to point out it was a 'meticulously adduced, exhaustive investigation containing ACTUAL and CONVINCINGLY ACCURATE details'; then the spin is in and the con is on.
Convincingly accurate.
Is that like pure, unvarnished truth?
More accurately convincing because it is convincingly accurate?
Are you telling me that ACTUAL details were used in the report? Details provided by those federal agents involved, who, of course, had neither a personal axe to grind nor a career to be considered?
Balderdash to the max.
MD
Hell has unfrozen and the earth is tilted on it's axis again.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 10:14pm.
.
When one attempts to blame someone other than the
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 12:15am.
monstrous rapist/killer who ordered the fires set and the bullets to the brains which caused the unbearable deaths of so many innocent children as well as scores of deluded followers of this messianic madman, this pathetic waste of human flesh, who, thank God, is rotting in Hell as I type this, then it is an implicit defense of the morally depraved and repugnant criminal behavior of the actual perpetrator.
Jer
Jer, your opinion, while ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 12:39am.
completely and totally acceptable to you; comes across as nothing more than sanctimonious bullshit laid out to avoid admitting the very real culpability of Clinton, Reno, and the then labeled ATF, et al.
Talk about deflection.
Based on your sense of the scenario, if a trained officer of the law tracks down a horrible killer-rapist in a crowded mall, and takes him out in a hail of gunfire that was initiated by the bad guy, but only after several civilians are dead as a result of 'collateral damage', and ballistics testing shows an equal number of victims went down under gunfire from both sides - the cop gets a pass.
You are in both deflection and the aforementioned BS up to your chin.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:05am.
You will need to elaborate on your analogy. Are you talking about the initial confrontation between the Davidians and ATF, or the tragic conclusion?
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 4:51am.
Actually, now that you ask, the analogy could cover both the initial confrontation and the tragic conclusion.
The many things that could have gone wrong, did just that; along with additional unforeseen consequences coming to pass - all of which stemmed from the initial contact that turned, sadly, into a confrontation that ended badly for so many innocent people on both sides.
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, is it not?
Koresh was a beast; period.
The feds and local law enforcement acted in a far less than stellar capacity; it was almost as though their training went completely by the wayside.
For this I blame the feds, as they were the alpha dogs in the hunt. The logical chain of command leads through the DOJ into the White House.
It is your seeming desire to disallow for that actuality and deny culpability for any players other than David Koresh that remains the bone of contention between us on the subject of Waco.
MD
Jer goes the distance, and beyond
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 12:39am.
When one attempts to blame someone other than the monstrous rapist/killer who ordered the fires set and the bullets to the brains which caused the unbearable deaths of so many innocent children as well as scores of deluded followers of this messianic madman, this pathetic waste of human flesh, who, thank God, is rotting in Hell as I type this, then it is an implicit defense of the morally depraved and repugnant criminal behavior of the actual perpetrator.
Jer, overcompensate to make sure we see only one perpetrator in this whole mess..... much?
- Shy's Black 12" Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy...you're right.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:32am.
I did get a little carried away with the florid rhetoric.
Jer
You ain't going to JerO'rize me.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:33pm.
The last 2 democrat CinC's has/had one thing in common, kill the second amendment. Bill Clinton damaged it, with Waco. How many more gun laws are there now than in the 90's?
Day by day we are being forced to view/search an intercontinental killing field cluttered with dead humans via sloww walkin guns.
More ammo than Waco, well not yet. More deaths than Clinton. 93 well not yet.
One state 3 more to go.
Again it's about controlling guns, blame it on some gun show kooks. Buba did, lord fly boy is workin the circuit, ta day.
Bubba Clinton, I'm shocked I tell ya Shocked! Church folks should only do bake sales not sell guns, tisk tisk. Bubba yells, Dammit Janet, rap this up now.
Danforth, the most exalted Republican in Jer's life, evah. Love reading all them accolades, pour on some more, my fav..exhaustive
More data flowed AFTER his report. Some sort of Jer rule here no data allowed after 1998?
OPPs like ATF pyrotechnics were used.
That's where you and I diverge, you have reached a waco consensus and you're done on collecting data on Waco, done soo long-long ago waay back in the 90's.
You the liberal that you are have heard that the next terrorist attack is coming from FUR SUR a white guy toothless Christian.
Clinton, made the decision to erase that church.
Obama made the decision to pass guns to Mexico.
I'm sick and tired of ATF being used as pawns for the KOOK DEMOCRATS.
Abuse of the Chain of command hierarchy. It's a full-blown CiC cut N' run, lead from behind moment.
You ain't going to JerO'rize me with your ancient DEMOCRATIC consensus drivel.
The least you can do here is stay abreast of the facts.
You Didn't Build That.
Actually, ucw....Reagan is my favorite Republican
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 12:46am.
but the Gipper doesn't have anything to do with the topic, nor does Fast and Furious.
Check out the inventory sometime of the arsenal found stockpiled in the charred ruins of the Davidian compound--weapons and explosives that Koresh apparently needed for his House of God. He must have thought of them as religious artifacts. I listened to one eyewitness who had accompanied the minister to the firing range describe Koresh's superb skills with an AK-47 [which he had illegally converted to full automatic, btw.]
Congress is just awash with gun control legislation, isn't it? [Well....no. It isn't] Nor was it when the Dems had overwhelming congressional majorities.
I do indeed stay abreast of facts while recognizing and rejecting propaganda. You should try it occasionally.
Jer
I doubt, Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 4:58am.
that anyone is 'superb' with an AK-47 viv-a-vis actual marksmanship; you could point a blind man in the general direction of the target and expect decent hits.
Squeeze and spray.
That said, your florid rhetoric just north of here was great.
MD
Mattthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 7:00pm.
You are correct about marksmanship, but, as I recall, the description of Koresh's skills extended to his overall abilities with the AK-47: weapon familiarity, breaking it down and reassembling, speed and dexterity demonstrated in loading and firing and obliterating the targets.
Jer
Very nice Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 11:27pm.
But is being familiar with an AK-47 a crime? My brother can do that with most weapons too.
We Are The 53%
No Denny...and the witness was
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:30am.
quite impressed. Our minister has trouble using a fork properly. I fault Koresh for many things more objectionable--such as forcing the children to listen to his preaching for hours on end without even permitting them a bathroom break which resulted in their soiling themselves--than were his talents with an AK-47.
Jer
Jer'ed, Full Auto,Ammo and gunpower are still legal inTexas
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 6:36pm.
Gots to pay for a permit to have a full automatic weapon, opps forgot about that, it's a state law, like the child issues another state law.
You and Janet think alike, Churches should only have bake sales......I think a church can have any sort of business, not just limited to food.
Good that Janet,swooped in under direct orders from BUBBA showed up and killed all that ALLEGED child molestation activity, good job she did too, ended it all that like a Democrat abortion. No child left behind.
Good bring up The Gipper, did he pull an O'bama invading Granada,in a gun walking cover up, sort of thing. Who was the special prosecutor on that ?
Obamas gun mess covers magnitudes more intercontinental land area than that plywood Church in Bubbas kill zone.
Obama smokin mirrors, ain't no match for Bubbas skill. Gun walker is not going to burn up in 2 hours.
Both democrat MORONS were/are screwing with the 2 nd. Amendment.
Edit post to add: Waco N' Fast and Furious
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 6:51pm.
Well, maybe the Lord spoke to Koresh and reminded him to be sure and get his full auto permit so the church's holy arsenal would be in full compliance.
Do you have a list of any other Christian places of worship which in addition to bake sales, or in lieu of them, transact in the firearms business or stockpile the type and volume of weaponry as did Koresh and the Davidians?
Yes, I am quite sure Clinton and Reno got together and said, "enough's enough...let's kill the kids."
YOU brought up the topic of "my favorite Republican". I responded to set the record straight. Please don't be disingenuous.
Jer
Danforth, the most exalted Republican in Jer's life, evah.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 7:39pm.
OHH it's a Jer twisteroo...most exalted = my favorite
Disingenuous squared... truly exhaustive, there jer
During the early years of Plymouth, failing to bring your gun to church was an offense for which you could be fined 12 pence.
Oh look a year after Waco, Bubbas law... The last significant federal gun law was 1994's Assault Weapons Ban,
And in 1998 More paper work for non criminals..
The Brady Act goes into effect which requires all gun dealers to run background checks on all potential buyers using the National Instant Criminal Background Check system.
Maybe the democratic president in office can pass another gun law, something like no more than 5 bullets, with any gun, or non removable trigger locks.
You Didn't Build That.
Just my $.02*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 8:47pm.
Bringing up Waco again is another "charged" discussion. If the ATF indeed made mistakes, it is always going to be second guessing. That is always what happens when law enforcement must make instant decisions while under fire. Had the ATF delayed the raid onto the compound, Demon Dave had already shown himself to be another Jim Jones. Had the ATF "waited them out", there would have been another Jonestown. Nobody wins and everybody gets blamed..
But at least Demon Dave would not harm another child and law enforcement learned a great deal from that incident.
My fear is that soon,, there will be a similiar confrontation at a mosque. Can you imagine the screeching from all sides of that one?
Thank you, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 9:45pm.
Two cents doesn't even come close to the value of your observation. The feds did indeed make mistakes. They admit they made mistakes, and they say if they had it to do over, there are things they would have done differently. But their mistakes were mistakes made in good faith. Koresh's deeds--his criminality--were deliberate, vile, and indefensible, and his actions directly caused the deaths of scores of innocents.
Jer
So mistakes made in good faith leave corpses---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 9:55pm.
a little less dead?
MD
No Matthew...the mistakes by the federal authorities
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 10:09pm.
didn't leave ANYBODY dead. The intentional acts of Koresh--and HIS ALONE--were responsible for the deaths.
Jer
Absolutely incorrect, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 11:36pm.
and posted by someone with obviously zero experience in proper law enforcement tactics relevant a siege situation; but with a boat load of experience in attempting to exonerate Slick Willie and Reno.
MD
If you wish to turn it into a partisan ideological issue, md...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:05am.
you are free to "Slick Willy" the tragedy to your heart's content. If you wish to make a point about the degree of my personal experience with law enforcement siege tactics, go right ahead. But the 400 pages of the interim and final reports published in the aftermath of the most thorough investigation of Waco to date provide the FACTS on which I base my opinion--as do the other materials I've read and the documentaries I've watched.
Jer
You keep harping, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:42am.
on the "facts" upon which you base your opinion - the Danforth report.
For a lawyer type, you are either most gullible; as that was neither an 'after action' report nor an 'exhaustive investigation' - but rather a complete 'cover our ass' manifesto - OR - you have an ideological slant on, or stake in, the argument.
MD
One other note, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 10:06pm.
Waco is definitely a highly charged topic--and one which unfailingly strikes a nerve with me and has provoked strong comments from me several times in the past--the loss of children, and the catalyst for the OKC bombing which resulted in the loss of many more lives including more kids, and it ALL goes back to Koresh. But, for what it's worth, I think I have only raised the issue once over the years at NB and that was a brief, indirect reference. Every other time, it has been in response to someone else bringing it up.
Jer
Crack open a dictionary, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 9:29pm.
ex·alt
[ig-zawlt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to raise in rank, honor, power, character, quality, etc.; elevate: He was exalted to the position of president.
2.
to praise; extol: to exalt someone to the skies.
I think it's safe to say if you claim--as you did in fact claim--a particular politician is my (i.e. Jer's) most exalted Republican, it is tantamount to claiming he is my favorite Republican. So I responded correctly and truthfully that Reagan is my favorite Republican. As I said, stop being so disingenuous.
The 1998 instant background check is what gun rights advocates had wanted! It eliminated the waiting period which had been a temporary provision of the 1994 bill. Sigh, you fail again.
Jer
I'm laughing at you Jer, HA HA HA HA HA
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:18am.
Hay failure boy, you are the KING of disingenuous.
Still a DEMOCRAT, there I rest my case.
Looks like you have never tried to buy a HANDGUN... hello fingerprinting.
1994 Clinton.... gun control
1998 Clinton gun control
1999 Bill Clinton gun control
A bill is passed which requires all newly made hand guns to have a trigger lock. The bill also extends the waiting period and background checks of firearms being sold at gun shows.
Bust out a dictionary, and show me where EXTENDS means ELIMINATED.
Great the next post will explain they both start with an "E".
HA HA HA HA HA HA
FBI incendiary lies.
Most recently, the FBI was caught lying about the use of pyrotechnic tear gas canisters. For six years the agency has sworn up and down that no incendiary devices were deployed on the day the Branch Davidian compound burned. Whoops.
At least the FBI has the lingo down, denying that there was a "grand conspiracy": Accuse the people who say you're lying of being "conspiracy theorists." This is especially effective when explaining your last lie.
You Didn't Build That.
.The joke's on you, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 4:47am.
1994
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Imposed, on an interim basis, a five-day waiting period and background check before a licensed gun importer, manufacturer or dealer can sell or deliver a handgun to an unlicensed individual.
Required a new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI, be ready to replace the waiting period by Nov. 30, 1998. The new background check system will apply to all firearms and will allow checks to be done over the phone or electronically with results returned immediately in most cases.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.
Criteria for semiautomatic assault weapons that fall under the ban are provided as well as a list of 19 specific firearms.
Prohibits juveniles from possessing or selling handguns and directs the attorney general to evaluate proposed and existing state juvenile gun laws.
Top
1998
Brady Handgun Act Goes Into Effect
The Brady Act goes into effect which requires all gun dealers to run background checks on all potential buyers using the National Instant Criminal Background Check system.
Top
1999
Gun Bill Requires Trigger Locks
A bill is passed which requires all newly made hand guns to have a trigger lock. The bill also extends the waiting period and background checks of firearms being sold at gun shows.
Read more: Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html#1990#ixzz1Znbo1kDo
See if you can follow this, ucw: You claimed gun legislation in 1998 created more paperwork for gun dealers ["non criminals" was the term you used]. I responded that the waiting period was eliminated by that law as mandated by the 1994 Brady Bill provisions, and that was something gun-rights advocates wanted. My statement was absolutely true. E-L-I-M-I-N-A-T-E-D. Got it?
You had said nothing about 1999 in your earlier post. Yes, there was legislation passed in 1999 which closed the gun show loophole in the Brady Bill and also required trigger locks. I will concede that such could qualify as significant gun control legislation and in a post somewhere I had quoted the statement--which is found in your original link--that "no significant federal gun control legislation had been passed since 1994".
Now that we've got that resolved, how about correcting your blatant misrepresentations in your Coulter post below.
Jer
All that was in the link.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 4:49am.
So you are saying it's easier to get a gun now, than it was in the 50's.
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 5:04am.
Legally or illegally? I don't know the answer. But I also don't know of any substantive gun control legislation that has been passed by the current administration, proposed by the current administration, or is currently pending in Congress. Do you?
Jer
Jer, No sweeping gun laws on Bushes watch.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 1:15pm.
To bad for the lefties, the FF attempted screw job of gun dealers, has not gone as planned.
However Obamas Executive order, stinks.
The question remains- if these Executive Orders are ‘common sense’ measures as the administration claims, why not let Congress enact them as laws? And if they are minor tweaks to existing law as others claim, are they necessary at all?
You Didn't Build That.
There you go again, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 8:52pm.
As I've pointed out to you before, Law Enforcement treats mentally deranged hostage-takers differently from human-shield takers.
Reno had already opined Koresh was the former.
And you can not insist those children would have died anyway if Reno had waited him out.
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 10:35pm.
Waited him out for WHAT? So he could finish his manuscript on the meaning of the Seven Seals? Koresh was granted multiple extensions and accommodations. He broke every promise. He supposedly finished his manuscript but still wouldn't come out. Then the feds were reportedly told he had only finished interpreting the first of the Seven Seals. Six more to go.
The fact is the child rapist WAS NEVER COMING OUT! And no more children were coming out, because the remaining children were the ones he had fathered with his child "wives". Koresh's plan was for the fiery apocalyptic climax to occur which had always been his prophecy.
Jer
→ You're prob right, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 11:02pm.
Since those kids were getting raped anyway, the best thing for Reno to do was to initiate their execution.
Good thing they were just trailer trash, I guess.
You win.
cool arrow*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 11:18pm.
Cajun usually enjoys your posts but this one is so callous and insensitive as well as lacking knowledge. Drsamherman could explain it better but I will try... People like Jim Jones and David Koresh are not your typical deranged criminals. They are skilled, talented, intelligent and educated. They are messianic grand moolahs of narcissism. They are aggressive, vengeful, and domineering. They believe they have the right over life and death. They use human beings, especially children, because it gives them an even greater sense of power. Put weapons in the hands of this kind of crazy and NOTHING anyone could do was going to change the outcome. HE is the one guilty of the murder of innocent traumatized children he had already defiled. Would you prefer they drank the deadly koolaid instead?
No one is excusing the mistakes made but if it would have been me in charge, armored tanks would have been called in for the purpose of saving the children knowing they were already doomed. Trust me, this kind of man, and there are others, can never be dealt with "by the book" by any branch of law enforcement. Anyone around caught in "their" web of control are already doomed.
→ I get what you're saying
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:14pm.
But having promised a conflagration at the hands of the government authorities, it made absolutely better sense to string up a fence around the compound than to punch holes into the building with an Abrams Tank supported by 5-10 Bradley vehicles.
Wow, I wonder what might have made Koresh's followers believe their prophet might be right?
Best thing you can do with a false prophet is prove him wrong.
I'm a fan of Cool Arrow--always have been and probably always
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 11:46pm.
will be. However this is one of his classic but repugnant 'debate' tactics he often employs: Completely distorting one's position and then "concluding" that person is embracing an unusually vile belief, or justifying inexcusable behavior, or defending a worthless scoundrel.
It goes something like..."so you think hippies were generally peaceful. Well, at least you admit that you were proud of Charles Manson and endorse the murder of pregnant women."
Jer
Not possible, I suppose, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:00am.
to consider that Cool Arrow was zeroed in on pointing out your infallible need to paint Koresh in the worst possible terms so as to alleviate the chances of anyone commenting on the colossal Clinton/Reno foul ups - ?
MD
Then you paint Koresh in better terms, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:10am.
I eagerly await your handiwork. Please proceed.
Jer
Impossible, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:50am.
to come up with enough vile terms to describe Koresh, a veritable monster.
That does not alter the fact that you utilize Koresh as a deflection point in your argument to avoid assigning blame properly to all who deserve same for the fiasco that was Waco.
MD
True Cool,Liberal think, missiles are safer than waterboarding.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:18am.
Just maybe the bureaucratic home /church invasion force, may have honed their tactics, and were not micro managed from DC ...When then; Mormon Mitt was leading way back there in April 19,2008 That was a good example of proper siege tactics.
------------------
Cajun-2: Here is Ann Coulter comments after the FBI confesses using incendiary tear gas canisters, after the EXHAUSTIVE Danforth report... FBI Incendiary lies
Most recently, the FBI was caught lying about the use of pyrotechnic tear gas canisters. For six years the agency has sworn up and down that no incendiary devices were deployed on the day the Branch Davidian compound burned. Whoops.
You Didn't Build That.
Check again, pal...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:34am.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco281.html
The Danforth Report was published after Coulter's embarrassingly moronic column--gee, David Koresh wasn't such a bad dude after all according to Ann--and after the revelations about the FBI incendiary cannisters, and those disclosures were part of the Commission's investigation. Here is a partial summary from the above-referenced source:
PRNewswire/November 8, 2000
Special Counsel John C. Danforth today delivered to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder his Final Report Concerning the 1993 Confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco, Texas.
This Report unequivocally reaffirms the conclusions contained in the Special Counsel's Interim Report of July 21, 2000.
Specifically:
Government agents did not start the fire at Waco;
Government agents did not shoot at the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993;
Government agents did not improperly use the United States military;
Government agents did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Attorney General Reno, the present and former Director of the FBI, other high officials of the United States, or the individual members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team who fired three pyrotechnic tear gas rounds on April 19, 1993.
Responsibility for the tragedy at Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, who shot and killed four ATF agents, wounded twenty others, shot at FBI agents trying to insert tear gas into the complex, burned down the complex, and shot at least twenty of their own people, including five children.
These conclusions are based on a review of some 2.3 million pages of documents, interviews of over 1000 witnesses, and examination of thousands of pounds of physical evidence. They are supported by the findings of numerous experts retained by the Office of Special Counsel to assist in its investigation. The expert reports are attached as appendices to the Special Counsel's Final Report.
The Final Report contains new conclusions as to whether government employees covered up evidence of the Hostage Rescue Team's firing of three pyrotechnic tear gas rounds four hours before the outbreak of the fire. After completing its investigation, the Office of Special Counsel has again ruled out the existence of a widespread conspiracy to cover up the use of the pyrotechnic tear gas rounds. In many cases, government agents did not disclose this information because they legitimately did not know that any pyrotechnic tear gas rounds were used. In some cases, the failure to disclose the information was due to negligence rather than "bad acts."
Significantly, however, the Office of Special Counsel concluded that certain members of the Department of Justice's trial team that prosecuted the Branch Davidians knew about the pyrotechnic tear gas rounds in 1993 and wrongly chose not to disclose this information to defense attorneys for the Davidians, to Congress, and to others within the Department of Justice.
Coulter also makes the despicably sick accusation that the left supported the government's killing the Davidians because Koresh and his followers believed in God. Shame on her.
I know your misrepresentation was unintentional, ucw, but you really need to pay more attention to important details such as the chronology of events.
Jer
For the semantically challenged,
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 4:40am.
For the semantically challenged, the report explains that there is an
important, though subtle, difference between "pyrotechnic" and "incendiary"
devices. The purpose of an incendiary device, we learn, is designed to cause
a fire. Technically, therefore, a pyrotechnic tear gas round is not
incendiary, presumably because a pyrotechnic round may cause a fire but is
not intended to do so. Incredibly, the Danforth report concludes that the FBI
(mis)statements to the AG, the Justice Department, to Congress and the
American public that "they never used any incendiary devices" were
"technically true," excluding, of course, the failure to disclose to
Congressional subcommittees who asked for a list of both pyrotechnic and
incendiary devices.
FBI attorney Jacqueline Brown twice failed to disclose key evidence of
military rounds in the civil case brought by the Davidians against the
government.
An expert in thermal imaging and videotape analysis tells the Washington Post that he has spent hundreds of hours reviewing various tapes of the Waco siege and has concluded
that “the FBI fired shots that day.”
When he was appointed special prosecutor, Danforth promised that he would not file
charges against any government employee for exercising bad judgment.
Unfortunately, the “official” investigation of the incident, headed by former senator John
Danforth, was soft and incomplete. Danforth’s sweeping exoneration of federal
officials is not supported by the factual record.
You Didn't Build That.
And ucw pulls out the same old conservative think tanker,
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 4:58am.
Tim Lynch, and his rousing dissent. Whoopee!
Are you too embarrassed to acknowledge your Coulter/timeline screw-ups?
Jer
Tim Lynch, has foot notes for everything he said.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 5:29am.
I like conservatives and their think tanks.
You are on a conservative site, democrat jer.
I acknowledge the time line screw up.
You Didn't Build That.
Thanks, ucw...I have to go.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 5:37am.
How about let's agreeing to an indefinite truce on Waco?
Later, Jer
Jer, Fat chance when you whip this out every single time Waco is
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 1:23pm.
mentioned.
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...Not every single time, but frequently
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 7:32pm.
and I will likely do it on occasion in the future when someone starts playing the Clinton/Reno: Waco Killers card yet again. I just thought maybe you and I had exhausted the topic on this thread and would prefer to move on to other things. But, if you want to continue, feel free. I'll respond as I see fit.
Jer
Members of the government, or representatives---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 5:02am.
of the government, or employees of the government, or people hired or appointed by the government to investigate the government, found that the government was not culpable in the Waco tragedy.
My, how odd.
MD
Right, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 5:15am.
It's very obvious those slackers and shills just sat on their collective asses for several months waiting to write up the massive collection of lies a/k/a the Clinton/Reno whitewash. A thousand witnesses count for nothing. Hell, a million witnesses wouldn't put a dent in your block of granite bias.
Jer
→ Refresh my memory
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 1:28pm.
How many children were killed by Koresh the day before the tank punched its nose thru the wall? Two days before . . . three days before . . . (you see where I'm going with this)
Again, once you have identified someone as mentally deranged, as Reno had already done publicly, you treat them as a different breed of hostage taker.
Any of you are free to state in open forum you'd like Janet Reno at the helm if it were your grandchildren held hostage.
Personally, I'd already seen her brandish her weaponry in front of Elian Gonzales.
More trailer trash, I know.
→ Sorry
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:23pm.
That was Ruby Ridge. Elian was just a bit of bullying.
Yes, Cool...Ruby Ridge: Different President, different AG
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 7:21pm.
But since they were Republicans and neither were named Clinton and Reno, they get a pass at this website.
Jer
→ Not in my book
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 8:29pm.
I thought Ruby Ridge looked a little too much like a frame up.
Janet got a little tangeled up with da gang from Ruby Ridge.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 10:30pm.
She loved their style....gave 'em a paid leave, from her stash too. The remaining Weavers got some 3 million bucks, from the same stash. Once you start a killin it really does pay to burn it to the ground, not like they give a rats arse about spending other peoples money.
Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional. Senate testimony showed that an FBI sniper killed Vicki Weaver by shooting her in the head as she held her baby while standing with the door open on her front porch. The FBI snipers were shooting at the Weavers from over 200 yards away using rifles with 10 power scopes. The snipers and assistant FBI director Larry Potts, testified that they had the right to shoot and kill anyone if that person was holding a gun. Chairman Spector pointed out that such a situation did not warrant the use of deadly force according to FBI policy. On the House floor, Idaho representative, Helen Chenoweth, called for the resignation of Potts who was also responsible for the WACO disaster and a personal friend of FBI Director Freeh, the Reno appointee. Randy Weaver's attorney called for Lon Horiuchi, the sniper, to be tried for murder based on the Justice Dept. investigation. Instead Horiuchi and Potts received paid leave for over two years. (RUBY RIDGE SIEGE INVESTIGATION) about 1995...
That had about as much of an effect as a letter to the editor, some where in rural China.
Poor founders, thinking the posts in government would be occupied by law abiding citizens.
You Didn't Build That.
→ Sorry
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:24pm.
That was Ruby Ridge. Elian was just a bit of bullying.
Exactly right, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 11:18pm.
though your hatred for Koresh does seem to outweigh your love for Clinton and Reno.
If I remember correctly, you did not practice criminal law; so you may not be familiar with the phrase "test-a-lie".
That is what some people will do rather than testify when on the stand while in court or when summoned to a deposition.
upcountry has pointed out some serious discrepancies that came to light regarding the original FBI 'testimonies', and to present or suggest that the entire investigative operation related to Waco was conducted in an uncompromising yet sterile atmosphere, and that all witnesses were, and are, above both reproach and the burden of human frailties, is odd for someone who practiced law.
Jurisprudence, and law enforcement, exist because there are those who are untrustworthy; whether formed that way because of life experience, or acting in counterpoint to pressure exerted by exigent circumstances, real or imagined.
The absolute majority of the Waco 'witnesses' were those involved in the operation on the government side; and the fact that the operation was botched means there is a great likelihood that interviewees would tend to fade the heat when giving information about their part in the scenario.
MD
Allow me to repeat the key findings:
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:49am.
Government agents did not start the fire at Waco;
Government agents did not shoot at the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993;
Government agents did not improperly use the United States military;
Government agents did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up.
There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Attorney General Reno, the present and former Director of the FBI, other high officials of the United States, or the individual members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team who fired three pyrotechnic tear gas rounds on April 19, 1993.
Responsibility for the tragedy at Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, who shot and killed four ATF agents, wounded twenty others, shot at FBI agents trying to insert tear gas into the complex, burned down the complex, and shot at least twenty of their own people, including five children.
These conclusions are based on a review of some 2.3 million pages of documents, interviews of over 1000 witnesses, and examination of thousands of pounds of physical evidence. They are supported by the findings of numerous experts retained by the Office of Special Counsel to assist in its investigation. The expert reports are attached as appendices to the Special Counsel's Final Report.
[My emphasis in bold]
Jer
More from Cato...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 5:47am.
The factual record, however, does not
support Danforth’s sweeping exoneration.
On the contrary, it raises deeply disturbing
questions not only about the tactics used at
Waco but, more generally, about the mindset
often found in America’s increasingly militarized
law enforcement agencies.
• July 30, 1992: ATF agents interview Texas
firearms dealer Henry McMahon about his
business dealings with Branch Davidian leader
David Koresh. During the interview,
McMahon telephones Koresh. Koresh tells
McMahon that if the ATF agents perceive any
legal problem, they can come to Mt. Carmel
and check his inventory and paperwork. ATF
agents decline the invitation.5
At 6:47 a.m., the FBI tactical commander
orders his field agents to use their grenade
launchers to fire “ferret” rounds through the
windows (a ferret is a 40-mm canister that
discharges tear gas on impact). At 7:10 a.m.,
field agents report that ferret rounds have
been fired into all of the windows of Mt.
Carmel. Some 389 ferret rounds are fired into
the residence throughout the morning
Reno admits that she had no evidence
that any child was being beaten at any time
during the standoff
The
technical expert in The Rules of Engagement
claims the FLIR film shows numerous gunshots
directed at the Mt. Carmel complex.
As the
expert views the FLIR tape on a television
monitor, he exclaims: “It’s not the sun striking
something. It’s not swamp gas reflecting off
the planet Venus. This is somebody shooting
[at the Mt. Carmel complex].
Several infrared experts have come forward
to contradict the FBI’s claim. The FBI’s
aerial FLIR film from April 19, 1993, contains
flashes of light. Edward Allard, a former
employee of the Defense Department and a
thermal imaging consultant for more than
30 years, appeared in the documentary film,
Waco: The Rules of Engagement, and said those
flashes were gunfire directed at Mt. Carmel.
Maurice Cox, a retired intelligence analyst
who worked on military satellite operations,
appeared in the film, Waco: A New Revelation,
and said the flashes of light were gunfire
directed at Mt. Carmel. Carlos Ghigliotti, an
expert in thermal imaging and videotape
analysis who once did freelance work for the
FBI, examined the FLIR tape and reached the
same conclusion as Allard and Cox.
Ghigliotti told the Washington Post,“The FBI
fired shots that day.”9 9 60 Minutes hired a
British army expert in infrared imagery to
examine the FLIR tape from April 19, 1993.
That expert, Paul Weaver, said the flashes
“look exactly as if they’re gunfire.
Despite the government’s protestations of
concern for the children, Stone found that the
FBI’s ultimate strategy was to try to force the
Davidians out of their residence by threatening the
lives of their children.
Because there is conflicting expert testimony
as to what appears on the FLIR tapes,
and because of the gravity of some of the
experts’ allegations, further investigation of
this matter is warranted...
You Didn't Build That.
→ Totally predictable
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 8:40pm.
And that is the problem with Reno's approach. It looks like she said "If it's Armageddon you want, I'll show you Armageddon!"
It seems likely Reno expected everybody in the compound to desert Koresh when the tanks started to move.
She should've known better, having totally botched her first attempt at the compound.
Truth be told? She had a score to settle and was starting tolook like a fool over that first attempt.
Not a very good reason to escalate the danger to children, even though they are all now identified as either victims of Koresh rape, products of it, or some permutation of both.
Predictable? Maybe to you, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 11:21pm.
And that is the problem with Reno's approach. It looks like she said "If it's Armageddon you want, I'll show you Armageddon!"
Sure. In other words, as I stated earlier, "Enough's enough....let's kill the kids." Reno's overriding objective was to get the kids out of there without being hurt. Koresh could have removed them from harm's way at any time, and then he could have died a martyr's death if that was his ultimate desire. It became crystal clear, however, that he had absolutely no intention of ever voluntarily releasing the remaining children. It was hoped and believed once the tear gas canisters were inserted, the children would be evacuated. Tanks were used as the means of delivery in order to protect the lives of federal authorities who had witnessed four of their fellow officers blown away by the Davidians, and nineteen others wounded in the earlier confrontation [which, true to form, you also blame on Reno]. Did you, could you, expect the feds to make the attempt without maximum protection considering what had happened to them before--and in light of the massive firepower wielded by the occupants of the compound?
Sadly, the children were still not released even after the insertion of the tear gas. They died as a result of either being shot as ordered by Koresh or incinerated by the fires ordered set by Koresh. FOR GOD'S SAKE, YOU CAN HEAR THE DAVIDIANS ON TAPE ASKING IF ALL THE FIRES HAD BEEN SET AS PLANNED! They were lit in different locations inside the building as had been predetermined by Koresh and the Davidians.
No, all of the children were not being forcibly raped by Koresh. But he was statutorily raping the young girls--minors--he was taking as his "brides". [There had been at least one prior incident where a ten-year-old girl had been delivered by her mother at a motel to Koresh for the daughter's sexual baptism. Maybe her mother thought like other Davidians that Koresh was actually Jesus Christ. Anyway, he finally gave up after his repeated attempts to penetrate her daughter failed.] Families were split up as Koresh would decide to take the wife and mom to be yet another spouse for himself. What a wonderful role model was this man of God for the children of their now estranged parents! At the compound, he directed the abusive disciplining of kids which was administered by wooden paddles to the point of bruised and bleeding bodies. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he prevented the young ones from going to the bathroom while he preached for hours on end. Consequently, they were forced to soil themselves. Otherwise, I suppose they were treated pretty well--except for being shot or burned to death by Koresh in the end.
But blame Clinton and Reno. Call them murderers. Accuse liberals of applauding the death of kids because Koresh and the Davidians believed in God and the left doesn't. I have to admit--as political strategy--it was a masterstroke.
Jer
There is disagreement, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 11:52pm.
on the Davidian voices heard on tape reference the setting of fires "as planned".
There was fuel in the buildings that contributed greatly to the spread of fire, but there is reasonable contention that the incendiary rounds fired into the buildings ignited the fuel unexpectedly; and the questions overheard related to the flames, were actually asking in uncertainty and fear, "Was that planned?"
MD
Has anyone actually viewed the disclosures contained
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:15am.
in the Final Report?
The following evidence demonstrates that the Davidians started the fire:
(a) Title III Intercepts.11 Davidian conversations intercepted through the use of concealed listening devices inside the complex from April 17 to April 19 indicate that the Davidians started the fire. An April 17 intercept records Davidians discussing how they could prevent fire trucks from reaching the complex. An April 18 intercept records a conversation between Steven Schneider12 and other Davidians indicating a conspiracy to start a fire. During that conversation, Schneider joked that another Davidian had always wanted to be a “charcoal briquette.” Another Davidian stated that, “I know there’s nothing like a good fire . . . .” On April 19, between the beginning of the tear gas insertion operation at approximately 6:00 a.m. and approximately 7:25 a.m., the Title III intercepts recorded the following statements: “Need fuel;” “Do you want it poured?;” “Have you poured it yet?;” “Did you pour it yet?;” “David said pourit right?;” “David said we have to get the fuel on;” “We want the fuel;” “They got some fuel around here;” “Have you got the fuel . . . the fuel ready?;” “I’ve already poured it;” “It’s already poured;” “Yeah . . . we’ve been pouring it;” “Pouring it already;” “Real quickly you can order the fire yes;” “You got to put the fuel in there too;” “We’ve got it poured already;” “Is there a way to spread fuel in here?;” “So we only light it first when they come in with the tank right . . . right as they’re coming in;” “That’s secure . . . we should get more hay in here;” “You have to spread it so get started ok?” These statements precede the sighting of fire by several hours, which is further proof that the Davidians intended to set fire to the complex well in advance of actually lighting the fires. Much closer to the time of the fire, from approximately 11:17 a.m. to 12:04 p.m., Title III intercepts recorded the following statements from inside the complex: “Do you think I could light this soon?;” “I want a fire on the front . . . you two can go;” “Keep that fire going . . . keep it.”13 The only plausible explanation for these comments is that some of the Davidians were executing their plan to start a fire.
(b) Admissions of Branch Davidians. Davidians who survived the fire have acknowledged that other Davidians started the fire. Graeme Craddock told the Office of Special Counsel in 1999 that he observed other Davidians pouring fuel in the chapel area of the complex on April 19, 1993. He further stated that he saw another Davidian, Mark Wendel, arrive from the second floor yelling: “Light the fire.” Davidian Clive Doyle told the Texas Rangers on April 20, 1993, that Davidians had spread Coleman fuel in designated locations throughout the complex, although he declined to state who specifically lit the fires.
(c) Statements of Government Witnesses. Observations by government witnesses support the conclusion that the Davidians started the fire. FBI agents who had the opportunity to observe activity within the Branch Davidian complex on April 19, using field glasses or spotting scopes, saw Davidians engaged in activity which they later concluded to be pouring fuel to start a fire. Some of these sightings were noted contemporaneously by the agents in FBI logs. Also, an FBI agent observed an unidentified Davidian ignite a fire in the front door area of the complex shortly after noon. This observation was also reported contemporaneously.
(d) Expert Fire Analysis. Fire experts agree that Davidians started the fire. The Office of Special Counsel interviewed the experts who performed the original, on-scene fire investigation and analysis. The Office of Special Counsel also retained two fire experts, one to review the work product of the previous investigators and to examine independently the photographic and physical evidence, and the other to analyze the spread of the fire throughout the complex. In addition, the Office of Special Counsel retained an expert to determine whether the tear gas, a combination of methylene chloride and orthochlorobenzylidenemalononitrile
Demonstrates, Jer, to your---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:16am.
satisfaction maybe, but proves absolutely nothing.
As a lawyer, you know better than that.
Even without going into 'who' is making the determination of what was actually said on the tapes, 'why' it was said, 'who' may have said it and in what context, especially given the absolute and overall confusion that reigned over both the Davidians and the outside forces; your reliance on those tapes as, at the risk of sounding redundant, "definitive evidence" of how the fire(s) started, is wrong headed.
MD
Matthew, I'm having some problems posting everything
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:23am.
I wanted to at one time and I'm having to do it piecemeal. Please hold off for just a few more minutes as I finish it in a new comment below.
Thanks...
Jer
By the way, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 1:05am.
I should have made it clear that the opening line about "the following evidence demonstrates the Davidians started the fire" is the introductory quote from the Report to that section--they were not my words. Obviously, however, I agree with the ultimate conclusion.
Jer
Continuing from the Final Report.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:34am.
(commonly referred to as “CS”), reached concentration levels in the complex that were sufficiently high to have caused or contributed to the rapid spread of the fire.14 Relying upon photographs, records of previous on-site investigative activity (such as the use of an accelerant detection dog), physical evidence, computer models and Forward Looking Infrared (“FLIR”) tapes, the experts concluded without question that people inside the complex started the fire in numerous locations throughout the complex. Three of these locations developed into large fires15 –on the second floor of the southeast corner of the main structure of the complex, at the stage area at the rear of the chapel, and in the kitchen/cafeteria area of the complex.16 See Appendices D and E. The experts further concluded that the CS and methylene chloride inserted into the complex as part of the plan did not start or contribute to the spread of the fire. See Appendix F. In addition to the allegations that CS gas could have started the fire in the Davidian complex, some have claimed that tear gas is lethal and should not have been used by the FBI at Waco.
Indeed, although concluding, “[I]t is highly unlikely that the CS riot control agent, in the quantities used by the FBI, reached lethal toxic levels,” the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight issued a report on August 2, 1996, stating: The presented evidence does indicate that CS insertion into the enclosed bunker, at a time when women and children were assembled inside that enclosed space, could have been a proximate cause of or directly resulted in some or all of the deaths attributed to asphyxiation in the autopsy reports. Therefore, the Office of Special Counsel believed that it was necessary to investigate thoroughly whether the CS gas used at Waco could have killed any of the Davidians. As stated in the Introduction, the evidence clearly establishes that the Davidians killed themselves. There is no doubt that they set the complex on fire; they refused to come out of the complex after they started the fire; and they shot themselves. No forensic pathologist who has examined the evidence has found any indication that the tear gas killed any Davidian.
Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that the Davidians killed themselves, the Office of Special Counsel notes that one of the toxicologists it retained, Dr. Uwe Heinrich, has concluded that, if people exposed to high levels of CS are not able to leave a room, “there is a distinct possibility that this kind of CS exposure can significantly contribute to or even cause lethal effects.”
link to Report
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:39am.
The foregoing is from p. 9 of the Report. Footnotes are omitted which provide further details and methodology. Whitewash my foot.
Jer
OK Matthew...that's all for now. Thanks.
"And the experts concluded without---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 1:18am.
question that people inside the complex started the fire in numerous locations throughout the complex".
I spent the majority of a forty-six year career doing fire investigations, around 8700 of them, and the wording of that report is as bogus as I have ever seen.
The very fact that tapes supposedly indicate that much fuel was poured, by different individuals, at various locations, and yet only 'three of these developed into large fires; is unadulterated crap; and the fact that statement is contained in an "official" report doesn't mean jack as far as supporting credibility.
Another very telling point about the writing of the report, under #14 - "Relying upon photographs, records of previous on-site investigative activity (such as the use of an accelerant detection dog), physical evidence--"
Makes it sound as though an A.D. canine was used to sniff around at the site PRIOR to the fires taking place.
A minor point as to wording, to be sure, but indicative of a tendency to be sloppy.
Not necessarily a game-breaker, but neither is it conducive to placing a report like this in the pantheon of unassailable truths.
In trials and depositions, one side always brings in 'experts' to support their argument, do they not?
MD
edit - may not have been a complete whitewash, Jer, but the report is most certainly not the whole story.
Good job putting your info together, though.
Matthew....bear with me.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 2:05am.
I'm trying to figure out a way to tell a guy that's done 8700 fire investigations that he's full of shit. I've ruled out "you don't know what you're talking about". ;-)
Jer
update. Gonna have to sleep on it. G'night.
Don't you guys have anything better to do?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 2:12am.
Like come on, lets argue over how stupid the occupy Wall street is! Jer those are products of your party. Please try and prove me wrong on this one. Oh, and they were inspired by Clintoon.
I know you were busy and probably just missed it, but I would really like an answer to this question.
Also, the Yemeni government tried him in absentia and had issued an arrest warrant for him dead or alive.
We Are The 53%
Denny---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 5:02am.
Even if we had better things to do, we wouldn't - arguing back and forth is just too much fun. :o)
Jer does pretty good arguing the Waco event considering he is against me and upcountry and Cool Arrow.
What's hard to figure is why he will accept the worst case scenario relative Nixon and the Watergate saga, but not Clinton-Reno and Waco.
Maybe Jer really is more of a Democrat than he is a liberal.
MD
Jer, The tanks knocked over the kerosene lanterns
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 1:49am.
Oh and why were they using lanterns?
The feds cut the power.
The tapes were not heard in "real Time", and they needed "fixing", because of poor sound quality.
380 ferret rounds of red hot tear gas canisters, sitting next to the drapes.
Say you have any other collaborating paper work, ya know that not from the exhaustive one..?
You Didn't Build That.
No, ucw....
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 2:03am.
It was actually Mrs. O'Leary's cow. They've been cleared in the Chicago deal. They ain't getting away with it this time.
Jer
I saw both events on live tv.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 2:27am.
The place burned down as fast as the Symbionese Liberation Army standoff. 700 degree tear gas canisters.
I was screaming at the tv, because it was a repeat of SLA. No one learned anything!
The tank to cow conversion, is that a methane question, kuz it sure stinks.
You Didn't Build That.
That is what happens when you and your Attorney General
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:15am.
are ignorant of the Constitution and choose to ignore the laws of the land. Even if he was able to be convicted, he was not present, therefore no trial could start. Trial in absentia is not generally allowed in the US. You at least have to have filed charges for it to be a case. Holder and Obama, being the great Constitutional scholars that they are, should know that.
Taking him out as an enemy combatant is legal if we are in a war, which we are. The ACLU can just call it "friendly fire" and proceed onward. All the deranged libs LOVE the idea of "fragging" and "friendly fire" so this should be able to be stretched to that one. Obama was probably after a goat in the compound, and a US citizen just got in the way with a bunch of others.
This does need a Congressional inquiry to assure that it was handled properly.
Dennis Prager
Are you not aware that you have aligned yourself four-square
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:30pm.
with the ACLU's position? You don't seem to be. Maybe acquainting yourself with the facts would be helpful before spouting off further. Based on your comments, you should be sending the organization money instead of mockery.
Jer
Chalk it up to the exigencies
Submitted by BD on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 3:14pm.
Chalk it up to the exigencies of warfare.
After all, Abraham Lincoln did not have to try each rebel soldier in a court of law before the Federal Army mowed them down at Little Round Top. And those were natural born American citizens just like Awlaki. Awlaki was in open rebellion just like the Alabama rifles who attacked up hill into the 20th Maine's killing ground.
You seem to be making the same mistake as those who worship the law as a quasi religion. Not everything requires a judicial proceeding (THough most lawyers would make it so if possible.)
Awlliwannistokillya was a traitor who turned his back on America
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:14am.
...and sided with our enemies in a time of war.
Now he's sand-flea food.
That's a good thing. :-)
And I don't give a flying fornication who was residing in the White House when that happened, either.
Some people just do not need to be on this rock, and Awlaki was one of them.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
It is just horrific
Submitted by coin of the realm on Fri, 10/07/2011 - 10:14pm.
and getting worse by the day under Obama. I think that the trend of slow, steady and ever expanding erosion of our freedoms and civil rights will continue no matter who is in the WH. Obama has gone so far to the right on these issues that even the top republicans are complimenting him!! Heck, even Cheney said he was doing a good job on national security and the war on terrorism. At this point Obama is further to the right than many republicans were just a few years ago. I find it amusing that anyone can accuse him of being a liberal when he is further right than the neocons were during the bush years.
Question is, how do we stop this lawlessness? Many people seem content to give up their freedoms and privacy in the struggle to protect our freedoms from that band of terrorists scattered about!
So much for land of the free and home of the BRAVE.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
coin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/07/2011 - 10:24pm.
What on earth are you smoking/drinking tonight? Or did you forget to take your meds?