US citizen murdered by government without trial

Dual use means that things have legitimate uses.

Those strains are used to make vaccines.

There is no evidence they were ever used in any kind of warfare and there is no evidence that we helped them make CWs.

Banning the sale of Chlorine only means that people die because of bad water.

But chlorine can be used to make mustard gas.

That was unfortuneately done under the Clinton era sanctions because clueless people like yourself would complain that Chlorine while sure you could use Chlorine to make your water safe to drink, you could also use it to make Mustard Gas.

So Iraqi children died.

By the THOUSANDS.

So no you still remain clueless.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Adoucette

You're a trip you know that. Why would they believe that a man who used chemical weapons before for nefarious uses would somehow change and not use them against people? Especially when they knew that was what he had done and what he would continue to do. Why would a man who has done this all of a sudden change their policy in favor of 'iraqi children'? Your problem is that you want to justify anything your government does when they knowingly engage in the unconscionable.

Its like saying "Yeah I know he's an ax murderer, but I sold him an ax because I thought he would chop wood".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are a lot of ways to kill people.

Banning the sale of Chlorine only insures that innocent Iraqi children will die.


What is really bizarre about your reasoning is that to presume that if we did do something wrong in the past, that somehow taints what we did right in the present.

But the good news is everyone can see through your most obvious agenda of spreading hate about America.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're worse than a fool, because fools suffer from ignorance. You're simply evil because you defend evil. You justify it and then try and make it into a good, you would like for evil to be the status quo. So I would rather be a fool than an evil bastard but I am ahead of you because at least I have the bloody information and you simply deal in lies and fraud covered up in vanilla icing.

 

@Adoucette

Speaking of Iraqi children, the US government pushed sanctions on Iraq and 500,000 children died because of it. It was so bad that the UN official in charge left his job because of it...of course the US defended its action but please don't tell me that the US gave a shit about the fate of Iraqi children. Meanwhile the sanctions did nothing to suppose Saddam.

 

You are the evil one who prefers a world filled with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussains.

 

They were UN sanctions.

A lot of Americans wanted to oust Saddam instead, but the decision was to try the less invasive Sanctions first.

But then when we decided to oust Saddam, because the Sanctions didn't work fools like you try to ding us for that as well.

Arthur

 

LOL! Really? Prove it. Show me evidence based on my posting history.

 

They were US backed (or rather pushed) UN sanctions, go and do some research you ostrich.

 

This thread is sufficient proof.

 

So, they were UN sanctions.

Which means they had support of the UN.

 

Really? Actually I am defending the 5th amendment, I'm defending the rule of law; judicial and congressional oversight. What are you defending? I mean I know that americans have this knee jerk reaction where they never question power. But I don't come out of such a stupid mindset.

 

Yes, really.

You want to use our 5th amendment to give Al Qaeda members a free pass.

Too bad Lucy, no one buys your lame arguments.

I'm defending the right of the Commander in Chief to defend the US against all enemies.

 

Not a free pass, criminal actions need a judicial response. Other nations, Israel for example, have problems with terrorists and yet they don't allow for executive order kills of their own citizens. They have this fussy idea of oversight and accountability. You would just kill anyone for anything regardless of evidence.

 

Too bad Lucy.

They aren't CRIMINALS, they have declared war against America and then helped to kill thousands of Americans and so they forfeit the right to be treated as suspects and given due process.

They ARE guilty, simply by being a member of Al Qaeda and indeed, our Military can kill them on sight.


And except for your assertion, you have NOT shown that Israel won't kill an Israeli citizen if they take up arms against Israel.

Not that it matters

Obama was within his Constitutional rights as CIC to defend the US by taking out this member of Al Qaeda.

And you claimed you liked the Constitution.

Guess that was a lie.

 

The guilt of US citizens is generally determined in court, civil or military. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

 

No, she's right. He deserved a trial to determine his guilt. However obvious his crimes may seem to be.

 

No she's not right.
Being a citizen doesn't give you a pass if you join Al Qaeda, then guilt is not an issue because as a membe of Al Qaeda living in Yemen then it becomes a Military matter, and the military doesn't hold trials to determine the "guilt" of the enemy, it simply engages them, when and where it finds them.

 

That is like saying that someone who thinks a suspected murderer should have a fair trial wants the world filled with murderers. Your thought here is utterly unAmerican.

 

Well they haven't allowed for that power. If obama was within constitutional rights then why are people so concerned? Why question it?

Written by Ron Paul:


As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat. National defense is a primary function of Congress and the commander-in-chief, and, as chief executive, I would carry out my duties as outlined in the Constitution and in accordance with the rule of law.

President Obama apparently believes he is not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law. When it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen last week, certainly no one felt remorse for his fate. Awlaki was a detestable person we believe helped recruit and inspire others to kill Americans through terrorist acts.

We have to take the fight against terrorism very seriously. In 2001, I supported the authority to capture and kill the thugs responsible for 9/11. In our efforts we must, however, work hard to preserve and respect our great American constitutional principles.

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.

The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frighening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone. Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law. The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree.

When Nazi leader and Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann was convicted and executed by the Israeli government in 1962, it was after he was captured, extradited and tried. Respect for the rule of law never has been for the protection of monsters like Eichmann or Awlaki, who should meet their just fate - but for the protection of the vast majority of innocent citizens who should never become subject to mere governmental whim.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...n_unconstitutional_killing.html#ixzz1ZrSQ1d4W



There is a second page of that piece you can continue to read if you like. Paul is a constitutional purist, he's constitution guy, and yet he titles this piece "An unconstitutional killing: Obama's killing of Awlaki violates American principles" Go figure. You perhaps lack the intellectual nuance to understand the problem with this move.