US citizen murdered by government without trial

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    When someone becomes a soldier, they become under different laws. For example a soldier is allowed to kill the enemy. This is not allowed for civilians.

    When al-Awlaki crossed the line between civilian and soldier, by his own choice, the rules changed; those who live by the sword can die by the sword. He was not a civilian but a soldier.

    He was sneaky so a stealthy strike was a righteous kill. If he fought mano-a-mano in the battle field, there would be a slightly different set of rules that respected rank and valor. But a sneak thief can be terminated with stealth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    By definition Sub-Prime mortgages were higher risk and anyone buying them knew that, but they did so for the higher returns these higher risk loans paid. Turned out it was just riskier than they thought, but to try to re-write history and say that they didn't know what they were buying is frankly silly. Everyone in the financial markets knew that Sub-Prime loans were higher risk.

    As to what they did with the TARP funds, that's their business, and because it's a business they know how to retain good people and good people work for bonuses.
    They don't get them they leave and then your business tanks.

    And we know it worked, because by retaining those people GS (who gave out these bonuses) returned ALL the TARP money in 09 along with a 23% ROI to the Treasury, so it was indeed a good deal for the US.

    Really?
    We had a VOTE and the american people stated they didn't want their tax dollars bailing out a private debt?

    I must have missed that vote.

    Siince there was in fact no vote, since WHEN did our Congress have to act based on polls?
    We are a Republic.
    Read up on what that means and get back to me once you understand how our system actually works as opposed to how you think it should work.

    Again you say you like the Constitution, but apparently not because you don't like the checks it places on the President because Congress (see REPUBLIC) obviously doesn't agree with your slanted view of the world.

    No, they couldn't "arrest him in a heartbeat".

    Again, being in Al Qaeda is NOT a criminal issue. It's a MILITARY issue and there is no requirement for the Military to bring anyone to trial.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...s-killed-in-yemen.html?_r=1&ref=anwaralawlaki

    Al Qaeda uses VIOLENCE against Americans.
    What part of that do you not understand?
    If you are a member of Al Qaeda, then you are in a WAR against America and support the killing of Americans.
    Which makes you a legitimate military target.

    Why should you put down Al Qaeda?
    Because not only do they wage war, but they fight without uniform or markings that allows them to hide within the normal society, putting those they hide among at risk for being mistaken as Al Qaeda members.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Where did you read he was a soldier? He was a cleric, an imam, not a soldier. See? This is the problem right here, you assume he's a soldier, this tells me you don't know anything about a man you self-righteously believe deserves death. You know nothing about it, care even less, but think its okay if someone loses their life. This is why your country is going to remain in a heap of trouble for a long time, you don't even know what the issue is, so you don't know what you are for or against.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You are so wrong about that Mrs. Lucysnow, every member of Al Quida is a soldier. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the enemy we are fighting.
     
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Adoucette



    Retain good people? Do you realize that there were people who crashed their own business, causing unemployment for a lot of people who received bonuses? Good people are people who actually create something, people who do something, they create nothing. They simply create schemes to milk money they move money, they don't earn money. Who, except a psychopath such as yourself, would say someone is 'good' and deserves a bonus for taking their own companies to the brink of collapse? You see if Steve Jobs gave himself a bonus I would say cool because he makes something useful, keeps people employed and is the cause of innovation. A banker doesn't do that. Goldman Sachs, the destroyer of nations, doesn't do that. But you think its good for the US, as if foreclosures and massive unemployment is good for a country. Do you know GS helped create the food crises?

    Demand and supply certainly matter. But there's another reason why food across the world has become so expensive: Wall Street greed.
    It took the brilliant minds of Goldman Sachs to realize the simple truth that nothing is more valuable than our daily bread. And where there's value, there's money to be made. In 1991, Goldman bankers, led by their prescient president Gary Cohn, came up with a new kind of investment product, a derivative that tracked 24 raw materials, from precious metals and energy to coffee, cocoa, cattle, corn, hogs, soy, and wheat. They weighted the investment value of each element, blended and commingled the parts into sums, then reduced what had been a complicated collection of real things into a mathematical formula that could be expressed as a single manifestation, to be known henceforth as the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI)….
    But Goldman's index perverted the symmetry of this system. The structure of the GSCI paid no heed to the centuries-old buy-sell/sell-buy patterns. This newfangled derivative product was "long only," which meant the product was constructed to buy commodities, and only buy. At the bottom of this "long-only" strategy lay an intent to transform an investment in commodities (previously the purview of specialists) into something that looked a great deal like an investment in a stock -- the kind of asset class wherein anyone could park their money and let it accrue for decades (along the lines of General Electric or Apple). Once the commodity market had been made to look more like the stock market, bankers could expect new influxes of ready cash. But the long-only strategy possessed a flaw, at least for those of us who eat. The GSCI did not include a mechanism to sell or "short" a commodity...
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

    You can read the rest of the saga for yourself. Again only a psychopath would praise this as a good. I would tell you to go and get some help but there is no cure for psychopathy, its just an indication of who you are.
    Where did I say that the people had a vote? I said the people stated to their representatives that they didn't want the bailout, this is why they initially voted NO! The house of representatives voted with the american people, meaning they said no because they public was telling them to say no. Where were you when all of this was going on anyway? It sounds as if you were unaware.
    Slanted view of the world? At least I hold independent views, you don't hold views, you simply side with whatever the establishment decides good or bad.
    Yes they could have arrested him in a heartbeat. And you say its a military issue but killing americans is a civil rights issue. You, again seem to think that because its the military that it should be outside norms and standards. Stalin felt the same.
    LOL! Al qaeda uses violence against americans. When was the last time they inflicted harm on americans? When? In the meantime you pass a law stating now that its okay for americans to kill americans. LOL! Hysterical. Alwaki was a cleric, there is no evidence he was in al qaeda, no one even cared he was dead except for you lot. The middle east made noise when Bin Laden died, they didn't react to Alwaki, they knew him as an american cleric, not a leader of al qaeda. Indeed your own intelligence agencies go on about his online activity, not about his leadership in al qaeda or his personal involvement in violent acts.
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    "Yes they could have arrested him in a heartbeat."

    Speculation on your part. Now you are trying to imply that Al Quida isn't a threat because they haven't killed an American lately? Absurd. Alwaki may not have been well known, but he was dangerous, even if he only used his words.
     
  11. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Again you have to have evidence that someone is actually a member of al qaeda. You have to say more than 'alleged' or 'connected' or 'thought to be' or 'implicated'. When Judge Bates said that this case brought to mind 'stark and perplexing questions' what do you think he meant by that? I mean considering that the decision is unreviewable. I cannot believe that you would be so short sighted that you cannot see past the fact that alwaki was a baddie and focus on what the fuck happened the moment they enacted this law and government gave themselves this right. Or is it that the 5th amendment doesn't matter to you? As the ACLU has stated:


    "If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in the president today will be available not just in this case but in future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful oversight by the courts."

    What a surprise! That's exactly the conclusion I came to when I first heard of this story. First thing. What I don't understand is why you can't wrap your head around that, why you can't see past Alwaki and see the extraordinary power you have just given away; I say given away and not taken because americans seem to be in such a trance that they will hand the government anything if they use the pavlovian cue 'terrorist'. Even the soviets were not this easily lead.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Clearly GS was not behind the global Credit Crisis, but they did get caught in it.
    They did take TARP funds, but not that much, and they would have survived without it, so your analysis is way off.

    The fact that they returned all their TARP funds and 23% profit by 09 does indicate that they have value as a company.

    But it appears that you think Banks are worthless.

    Not much I can do to educate someone who is that clueless.


    Total BS.

    As the article you posted points out:

    Total BS.
    GS is NOT responsible for any food crisis.
    Food went up because the cost of oil went up.
    Are they responsible for that too?

    Not at all, they voted NO, until the bill was changed to something they could support.
    It was, and on Oct 3rd they voted YES.

    BS


    No it's not.
    There were Americans fighting for Germany in WW2 and killing them was NOT a civil rights issue then either and no provisions were made to avoid doing so.

    No, the Military operates under military rules.
    Nothing in the killing of this Al Qaeda soldier was against military rules.

    They are still trying.
    As long as they are trying we have the right to stop them.

    Dec. 25: A Nigerian man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit attempted to ignite an explosive device hidden in his underwear. The explosive device that failed to detonate was a mixture of powder and liquid that did not alert security personnel in the airport. The alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told officials later that he was directed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The suspect was already on the government's watch list when he attempted the bombing; his father, a respected Nigerian banker, had told the U.S. government that he was worried about his son's increased extremism.

    Dec. 30, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills eight Americans civilians, seven of them CIA agents, at a base in Afghanistan. It's the deadliest attack on the agency since 9/11. The attacker is reportedly a double agent from Jordan who was acting on behalf of al-Qaeda.

    2010 May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges.

    Oct. 29: two packages are found on separate cargo planes. Each package contains a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11-14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism. The bombs are discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia's security chief. The packages, bound from Yemen to the United States, are discovered at en route stop-overs, one in England and one in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

    Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html#ixzz1ZpzKNmcu

    We have passed no such law and no one disputes his role in Al Qaeda but you.

    But feel free to edit the Wiki article since you know so much more than the rest of us about him.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

    Arthur
     
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    You mean that the US is so powerful in every way and have such a close relationship with Yemen, that they couldn't have had him apprehended. The oh so powerful america could get into pakistan unnoticed and scale bin laden's compound but they can't have yemeni security pick up a man no one gave a shit about? Amazing. Really amazin

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    How can smart people be so blind. Okay think of it like this, people in Pakistan hate you guts, I mean HATE americans (actually you're not much liked anywhere but that's besides the point), their public hates americans and the government isn't cooperative (its a pretentious ally) but yet yet you were able to enter the country and scale bin laden's quarters.

    Now you have a country where the people hate americans but the government is super super cooperative, they have a guy who is living in a normal house, not in hiding, in a normal neighborhood, no one knows about him no one cares, he's just the american guy, but no one could pick him up. He's an american citizen but yemens security couldn't just go get him. Ok, a-ha. Sure. Its all speculation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And he is WRONG.

    Besides the Congressional oversight and the agreement of other high ranking officials besides the president to get on the list, which pretty much eliminates the "any American" aspect, the military is prohibited from actions in the US, and operational considerations exclude many other areas.
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No, what's really amazing is how uninformed you are.

    The United States has been involved in airstrikes in Yemen in the past, the director of Yemen's counterterrorism unit acknowledges, but there is no American military presence in the country.

    Even these drones can't take off from Yeman.

    So no, unlike Pakistan our use of drones is our only physical presence there.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-04/...foreign-minister-qaeda-airstrikes?_s=PM:WORLD
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Audoucette

    Don't be dim, think for a moment. What are we talking about here? Is it the death of some guy in yemen? Or it is the nature of the order itself? I started this thread because of the nature of the order itself. I hate to spam but…

    "If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in the president today will be available not just in this case but in future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful oversight by the courts."


    That's what the ACLU had to say on the matter. The judge who couldn't stop this case referred to it as 'stark and perplexing'. Why would he say this? What did he mean by that? What could be so stark and perplexing about this case if its so normal and so obviously right. He remarked at the fact that this executive order is unusually unreviewable, the exact quote is:

    "Judge Bates acknowledged that the case raised “stark, and perplexing, questions” — including whether the president could “order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization.”

    What did he mean by 'mere assertion'? I mean he's a judge, he tries cases on evidence not assertion. Why is the government issuing kill orders that isn't reviewed by anyone? That provides no evidence to anyone?
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No, you started this thread to claim the killing of an Al Qaeda operative was MURDER.

    You are wrong and I pointed out why the ACLU guy is wrong.

    The judge didn't actually look into it though, except to say it didn't come under judicial review.

    Had he actually looked into it he would have found the safeguards I've pointed out.

    Arthur
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    In a debate you can answer yes or no but you cannot say something is wrong without explaining what you believe to be wrong.

    So go ahead and use your noggin. Show me evidence for example that there was congressional oversight? GO AND READ THE FUCKING NEWSPAPERS, THERE WAS NO JUDICIAL OR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IN THIS CASE THAT'S WHY THE BLOODY JUDGE SAID IT WAS 'STARK AND PERPLEXING' THAT'S WHY THE LAWYER IS SAYING WHAT HE'S SAYING. AND IT DOES EXTEND TO ANY AMERICAN THAT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE DECIDES IS A THREAT. HOW? BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO CALL FOR THE KILL. GET IT NOW?

    Whew. Glad I got that out of my system, your duncesness just got to me for a moment.
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    LOL

    Poor Lucy.

    I did explain why he was wrong.

    Try reading slower.

    The president as CIC of the MILITARY can not use the Military on US soil.

    So the ANYWHERE falls flat.

    As to the review, the President has established the review procedure:

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/09/john-brennans-remarks-at-hls-brookings-conference/

    Sitting on top of that is the ability of the Congress to impeach the president, so the idea that if Hillary was elected she could have called an air-strike on Monica is preposterous.

    Arthur
     
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    It is murder. But if you bothered to read my OP you would have a better gist of what i am outlining here.

    Where is your evidence that the judge didn't look into it? I want an outside source corroborating that claim. Because you think that judges and lawyers are idiots and you're the only one who understands anything. Go and show me where there was judicial and congressional oversight and approval. Go on now. Go spot go. Go fetch me a source.

    Even the fucking Israeli's don't do this shit! As Mother Jones pointed out:

    "The Israelis have never conducted an assassination against an Israeli citizen.... It would be interesting to look at what the Israel Supreme Court might say about the Prime Minister-directed killing of someone considered to be a terrorist, an Israeli citizen. I have a feeling, maybe i'm crazy, that there might be a more active judicial debate and Knesset debate on that than we have here."



    Here's what the guy from the Atlantic wrote:

    "President Obama, as you know, has authorized al-Awlaki's assassination, and this doesn't sit well with me, not because I like al-Qaeda propagandists, but because I think it is a fairly momentous step for an American president to take it upon himself to kill other Americans. Baumann found it interesting that a bloodthirsty warmongering neocon dual-loyalist (a BWNDL, for short) such as myself had such strong feelings about al-Awlaki's right as an American not to be killed by the President of the United States without substantial review."

    Are the journalists as well as judges and lawyers dip shit stupid too? What does he mean when he writes "without substantial review"?
     
  21. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Well they killed him for spread the word on how to kill other americans. I say WAY TO GO OBAMA. There needs to be more leadership will to do what it takes to get rid of the people that want to kill people in the NAME OF THEIR GOD.
     
  22. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Adoucette

    See that link? You know who is speaking there? Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, not a lawyer. I asked you to go and find and outside source not President Obama's mouth piece propaganda speech maker.
     
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    He didn't do that either. He didn't 'teach' people how to kill he made radical jihadi sermons, there's a difference. Its propaganda not the anarchists cook book.
     

Share This Page