Secret Panel can put Americans on "Kill List"

[Acid Trip]

An actual death panel (a secret one) that can put American's on a kill list. They keep no records and no memos. How could this possibly go wrong...

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL'

Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

"Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.

[Arkady Renko]

well duh, it'scalled Obamacare, how is that news? :huh: :mrgreen:

[Muddy]

All countries have this.. Whats the big deal? In the interest of national security, shit happens.

[Acid Trip]

All countries have this.. Whats the big deal? In the interest of national security, shit happens.

Really? All countries have secret death panels that allow them to break their countries Constitution? By all means share these countries and how it works there.

[Acid Trip]

I'll help you in your search. There is only one main requirement that must be met. Once it is met come back here and post examples of their death panels.

The country must have a Constitution that specifies all citizens receive due process.

Good luck!

[Hal-9000]

hell, the CIA's been doing this since the late 60's...

[Joebob034]

:puts Muddy on kill list: :face:

[Acid Trip]

hell, the CIA's been doing this since the late 60's...

Against US citizens? Please, tell us more.

[Muddy]

Against US citizens? Please, tell us more.

If "They keep no records and no memos." How in the frick can he post examples?

[Hal-9000]

Against US citizens? Please, tell us more.

:hand: The Hoover Secrets Act says then I'd have to kill you....and I like you.

[Hal-9000]

In the early 80's Black Ops agents admitted to 'pruning' the world political system with no input from the Oval Office.They've went on record saying it's been happening for over 20 years....everything from controlling the drug and weapons trade to taking out high ranking figures of governments from around the world.

First US citizen of note that got it was a guy named John Fitzgerald Kennedy :)

[Hal-9000]

is my tinfoil hat on straight? :)

[Acid Trip]

is my tinfoil hat on straight? :)

It's crooked. Like this guy :tinfoil:

[Acid Trip]

In the early 80's Black Ops agents admitted to 'pruning' the world political system with no input from the Oval Office.They've went on record saying it's been happening for over 20 years....everything from controlling the drug and weapons trade to taking out high ranking figures of governments from around the world.

First US citizen of note that got it was a guy named John Fitzgerald Kennedy :)

He wasn't killed by the US government on orders from the President and his staff. Conspiracy theorists believe the international banking cartels killed him, not the government he was president of.

Edit: They always relate Kennedy's death to the Executive Order he signed allowing money to be printed on a silver standard.

Link: http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_bankruptcy31.htm

[Hal-9000]

I was just kidding about death hits within your borders....I am pretty sure the worldwide black ops theory holds water.One guy was interviewed around 1984 I believe and spilled some nasty secrets about fringe elements of the CIA.

[Acid Trip]

I was just kidding about death hits within your borders....I am pretty sure the worldwide black ops theory holds water.One guy was interviewed around 1984 I believe and spilled some nasty secrets about fringe elements of the CIA.

If you can remember who the interviewer or interviewee was I'd love to read it. Conspiracy makes for a good time waster on airplanes.

[Hal-9000]

If you can remember who the interviewer or interviewee was I'd love to read it. Conspiracy makes for a good time waster on airplanes.

He was on TV and I'm tempted to say 60 Minutes, but that wasn't the program.Guy was silhouetted and made some claims....nothing outlandish but certainly illegal.He had a quote about how many millions their unit was making on the drug trade, while the public thought they were fighting the war on drugs.Weapons deals and assassinations were common according to him and he even went as far as to say that when you heard about the vice president of Botswana for example, dying of a heart attack, it was a concealed hit.

I believe things like that occur...problem is, how would we know one way or the other? If they had the 'Jason Bourne's Company's' resources and freedoms...

[JoeyB]

Where's the shocker here? Everything went out the window with Bush. We deny people due rights by declaring them as military prisoners and dumping them in Cuba, we torture freely and ship out those who we feel need extra special torture to shitball countries, we kill without questions, we invade countries left and right, and we have that insidiously misnamed patriot act chipping away at our constitutional protections.

Obama does what Bush did. Big shocker!

You want someone who will put things right, you won't find that person in either of the two main political parties. (And for the purposes of this argument, I am including tea baggers with the Republicans).

Don't expect any changes come the next election, regardless of which party wins.

America has become a militant, self serving and self important place, and until we change that, nothing else will change either.

[MrsM]

Where's the shocker here? Everything went out the window with Bush. We deny people due rights by declaring them as military prisoners and dumping them in Cuba, we torture freely and ship out those who we feel need extra special torture to shitball countries, we kill without questions, we invade countries left and right, and we have that insidiously misnamed patriot act chipping away at our constitutional protections.

Obama does what Bush did. Big shocker!

You want someone who will put things right, you won't find that person in either of the two main political parties. (And for the purposes of this argument, I am including tea baggers with the Republicans).

Don't expect any changes come the next election, regardless of which party wins.

America has become a militant, self serving and self important place, and until we change that, nothing else will change either.

+1 well put

[Hal-9000]

+1 well put

I never get a plus one from you :sad2:

[MrsM]

I never get a plus one from you :sad2:

+1 for Hal :tup:

[Hal-9000]

+1 for Hal :tup:

:mrgreen:

she's lookin at my crotch boys

[Acid Trip]

:mrgreen:

she's lookin at my crotch boys

It looks like the smilie she gave you is stucking his thumb up ur butt...

[Acid Trip]

Where's the shocker here? Everything went out the window with Bush. We deny people due rights by declaring them as military prisoners and dumping them in Cuba, we torture freely and ship out those who we feel need extra special torture to shitball countries, we kill without questions, we invade countries left and right, and we have that insidiously misnamed patriot act chipping away at our constitutional protections.

Obama does what Bush did. Big shocker!

You want someone who will put things right, you won't find that person in either of the two main political parties. (And for the purposes of this argument, I am including tea baggers with the Republicans).

Don't expect any changes come the next election, regardless of which party wins.

America has become a militant, self serving and self important place, and until we change that, nothing else will change either.

We aren't going to cure the military industrial complex (or political corruption) overnight. It may take an entire generation to get us back on the right footing but I'm certain it's possible.

If you've given up then they've already won!

[JoeyB]

:mrgreen:

she's lookin at my crotch boys

+1 for Halwynn.


+1 well put

Thank you.


We aren't going to cure the military industrial complex (or political corruption) overnight. It may take an entire generation to get us back on the right footing but I'm certain it's possible.

If you've given up then they've already won!

I'm going to ignore your meek attempt at sarcasm and hippy mocking, because you actually have it right.

The military industrial complex is a serious problem, one that is crippling this country financially and morally.

As for me, I never quit...I just also refuse to give heed to the empty promises of the big two parties.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Secret Panel can put Americans on "Kill List"

And what's the problem? Perhaps people need to make sure their activity doesn't cause the government to want to put them on said list.

[Muddy]

And what's the problem? Perhaps people need to make sure their activity doesn't cause the government to want to put them on said list.

And now you get a +1...

[JoeyB]

And what's the problem? Perhaps people need to make sure their activity doesn't cause the government to want to put them on said list.

The problem is, if a group of unknown people can order citizens killed, without any legal recourse and without any responsibility to law other than what they wish to do, then how do you even know that what people are doing to be killed is even justifiable?

Who do they answer too? And what standards do they employ?

Also, I oppose death penalties anyway. But this sort of thing is disturbing and nefarious. It's what evil dictatorships do in third world countries. Augusto Pinochet would approve of this sort of thing.

Aren't we better than that?

[Muddy]

Aren't we better than that?

In issues of national security.. NO.

[Hal-9000]

And what's the problem? Perhaps people need to make sure their activity doesn't cause the government to want to put them on said list.

You should be on it for watching American Idol

[Muddy]

You should be on it for watching Dancing with the stars

Uh thats me.. :oops:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

You should be on it for watching American Idol

I haven't watched Idol for 2 years :nono:

You should be on it for watching Survivor

[JoeyB]

Uh thats me.. :oops:

I watch Dancing With The Stars. Have every single season too.

[Muddy]

Go Chaz!

[JoeyB]

Go Chaz!

Hope Solo. Though, I wonder how long she'll last. Carson is oddly entertaining. And, is Chynna milf tastic or what?

You see Chynna and Billy Baldwin together with their perfect smiles, faces, bodies...and you just feel genetically inferior.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Go Chaz!

Don't watch the show, never have and never will, but the radio station on in the shop does a re-cap the next morning and I can't help but hear it. Sounds like Chaz sucks and consistently gets low scores, yet you watch him win because that's the PC thing

[Muddy]

Hope Solo. Though, I wonder how long she'll last. Carson is oddly entertaining. And, is Chynna milf tastic or what?

You see Chynna and Billy Baldwin together with their perfect smiles, faces, bodies...and you just feel genetically inferior.


How about that Chelsea Kane last season? Is she the finest thing on two legs or what?

[Muddy]

Don't watch the show, never have and never will, but the radio station on in the shop does a re-cap the next morning and I can't help but hear it. Sounds like Chaz sucks and consistently gets low scores, yet you watch him win because that's the PC thing

I always pull for the underdogs, homie... :)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I always pull for the underdogs, homie... :)

It's not an underdog if the final result is fixed ahead of time ;)

[Muddy]

It's not an underdog if the final result is fixed ahead of time ;)

Oh, he'll never make it to the finals... The first few shows are just a popularity contest.. it levels out after a few weeks..

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Oh, he'll never make it to the finals... The first few shows are just a popularity contest.. it levels out after a few weeks..

From everything I have heard on the radio and read on celeb sites, he should have been the first to go. The fact that he is even still there is ridiculous.

It would have been like the year Idol had William Hung show up and if the judges had put him thru to Hollywood

[Muddy]

From everything I have heard on the radio and read on celeb sites, he should have been the first to go. The fact that he is even still there is ridiculous.

It would have been like the year Idol had William Hung show up and if the judges had put him thru to Hollywood


No different when the people kept that Indian looking kid there(Idol) for so long... Sanjaya

[Teh One Who Knocks]

No different when the people kept that Indian looking kid there(Idol) for so long...

Sure it is :lol:

Sanjaya wasn't awesome by any stretch, but he did have at least a little talent. Did he deserve to go as far as he did? Of course not, but the people that vote on Idol are 13 year old girls, the demographic of people that watch DWTS is people your age :P

[JoeyB]

Don't watch the show, never have and never will, but the radio station on in the shop does a re-cap the next morning and I can't help but hear it. Sounds like Chaz sucks and consistently gets low scores, yet you watch him win because that's the PC thing

It's not PC per se. I mean, Bristol Palin wasn't very good but she got votes. It's a Cher and Sarah Palin side effect...the kids getting votes for the fame of the parent. I see the real 'pity' vote going to anyone who isn't very good but who is highly likable, rather than for any politically correct effect. Remember, DWTS has an above average conservative audience, and also a very high female audience.

This is why the supermodels tend to be phased out in the first few weeks regardless of performance...women do not vote for beautiful women.

But the best dancer usually wins the show...I can say that happens almost every season. The only injustice is in how long mediocre performers hang on...but never does it ruin the victory.

EDIT: and remember, on DWTS, the judge's votes count...audience vote is only half. It's not just opinions being offered by the panel, but actual result effects.

ONE MORE EDIT: Also, any PC vote would be ruined by the fact it would be split at least three ways here: the transgendered person, the scarred war vet, and the openly gay guy.


How about that Chelsea Kane last season? Is she the finest thing on two legs or what?

Yeah, she is tempting, funny thing is...her and Kendra are not that far apart in age, but I could have sworn to look at them the difference was a decade or more.

[Muddy]

Are we having a deep convo about DWTS in a thread about killing Americans? :lol:

[Hal-9000]

I haven't watched Idol for 2 years :nono:

You should be on it for watching Survivor

:facepalm: Not quite the same thing

[JoeyB]

Are we having a deep convo about DWTS in a thread about killing Americans? :lol:

Have you ever known any thread around here not to go around the bend like that?

[Acid Trip]

I'm going to ignore your meek attempt at sarcasm and hippy mocking, because you actually have it right.



It was neither sarcasm nor hippy mocking. When I use sarcasm I always put a :roll: at the end.

Your panties get all wound up every time you see my name huh? And you thought you made my head spin :rofl:

[Arkady Renko]

I can't believe none of you commented on my obamacare joke.

[JoeyB]

I can't believe none of you commented on my obamacare joke.

I didn't even see it?

Oh right, post number two.

See, there was your problem, you posted before the thread went off topic and people started paying attention.


Your panties get all wound up every time you see my name huh?

My panties are the exclusive province of Jez! And dude, with all due respect, I can't even tell a single difference between you and FBD. I treat the two of you as a single entity. You post, think, and react exactly the same. I don't even pay attention to which of you I'm responding to anymore, I just assign you both the same level of derision and disdain.

[Nemowork Pt2]

Suse me, but if its an utterly private dont ask dont tell White house secret list how does the tinfoil hat brigade have proof that it may (or may not) exist?

[JoeyB]

Suse me, but if its an utterly private dont ask dont tell White house secret list how does the tinfoil hat brigade have proof that it may (or may not) exist?

First, how is it you know of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade?

THB will be investigating you...

[deebakes]

I can't believe none of you commented on my obamacare joke.

:lmao: ?

[JoeyB]

:lmao: ?

I think he would have preferred the wank icon. But I could be wrong.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

According to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient, but rather, it is the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny.
Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American”, is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights? Didn’t we just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses. They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still afforded trials. These constitutional protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law. Al-Awlaki has been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans. We do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence. Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11. As the US attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to US foreign policy.
Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary – not even for citizens, and especially not for those overseas. However, there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on that list? They won’t tell us. What are the criteria? They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell us.
Al-Awlaki’s father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back. Beware.


http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-who-else-is-on-obamas-secret-kill-list/

[Acid Trip]

Sounds like Ron Paul agrees with the Constitution (and me). Either you are for it or you are against it. So many people are 100% behind the 1st Amendment's protected speech/religion/etc but are aghast of our right to bear arms and now due process is thrown in the mix. Which is it? Are you for or against it?

You know, there is a reason why politicians are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution....they are the only laws that are absolute and unquestionable!

The founding fathers tried to avoid the grey areas by delegating all powers not specifically given to the federal government to the States and the people. We fucked that up pretty quickly.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Exactly :tup:

People call him crazy because he always defends the laws of the land (Constitution) If you really think about what he is saying, it makes perfect sense. Just because you dont like a situation, like this home grown terrorist, people are willing to throw away there freedoms :roll:

[Muddy]

The founding fathers had a little different set of parameters they were dealing with 200 years ago when everyone rode horses.

[Acid Trip]

Exactly :tup:

People call him crazy because he always defends the laws of the land (Constitution) If you really think about what he is saying, it makes perfect sense. Just because you dont like a situation, like this home grown terrorist, people are willing to throw away there freedoms :roll:

The problem is all the emotion involved whenever someone says the word terrorist. It invokes such anger and resentment that people stop thinking clearly. You CANNOT murder an American citizen without due process. I don't care who it is. Anyone who knew of the attack (or was involved) should be tried as an accessory to murder.

That is the law of the land, plain and simple. Remove the emotion and you can see our government fucked this one up big time.

I'll admit I cheered a bit inside when I found out they killed this guy but it was short lived. If they can get away with it on these two jokers who is next?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

The founding fathers had a little different set of parameters they were dealing with 200 years ago when everyone rode horses.

Oh, so throw it all out the fucking window then

[Muddy]

Oh, so throw it all out the fucking window then

Thats exactly what I said..

[Acid Trip]

The founding fathers had a little different set of parameters they were dealing with 200 years ago when everyone rode horses.

A typical liberal excuse (no offense). They say "The Constitution is out dated. They never meant for it to be used in modern times blah blah blah". Anyone who firmly believes in the Constitution has heard it all before.

If you believe the Constitution and our form of government are no longer viable we (the people) have the right to rise up and change it. That's in the Constitution too ya know. Be prepared for one hell of a fight because people who believe the Constitution is out dated are in the minority.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Thats exactly what I said..

The point is, is the law is the law. If the government wants to decide when it does and doesnt apply then thats a problem to me.

[Muddy]

A typical liberal excuse (no offense). They say "The Constitution is out dated. They never meant for it to be used in modern times blah blah blah". Anyone who firmly believes in the Constitution has heard it all before.

If you believe the Constitution and our form of government are no longer viable we (the people) have the right to rise up and change it. That's in the Constitution too ya know. Be prepared for one hell of a fight because people who believe the Constitution is out dated are in the minority.


Just because I'm not a right wing wacko (no offense). Doesn't mean I'm a liberal either...

[Muddy]

The point is, is the law is the law. If the government wants to decide when it does and doesnt apply then thats a problem to me.


One minute you're tossing Baracks salad, and smoking dope on the courthouse steps. The next minute you are a right wing conservative from Alabama. Who are you, man?? :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

One minute you're tossing Baracks salad, and smoking dope on the courthouse steps. The next minute you are a right wing conservative from Alabama. Who are you, man?? :lol:

:burn:

[Acid Trip]

Just because I'm not a right wing wacko (no offense). Doesn't mean I'm a liberal either...

I said it was a liberal excuse. I never called you a liberal. See the difference?


One minute you're tossing Baracks salad, and smoking dope on the courthouse steps. The next minute you are a right wing conservative from Alabama. Who are you, man?? :lol:

He sounds like a Libertarian to me. Look it up.

[Muddy]

Porky sways with the tide...

[Deepsepia]

A typical liberal excuse (no offense). They say "The Constitution is out dated. They never meant for it to be used in modern times blah blah blah". Anyone who firmly believes in the Constitution has heard it all before.

If you believe the Constitution and our form of government are no longer viable we (the people) have the right to rise up and change it. That's in the Constitution too ya know. Be prepared for one hell of a fight because people who believe the Constitution is out dated are in the minority.

The problem is that the Constitution is all of four pages long. It makes the President commander in chief of the armed forces. We are at war with al Qaeda, under the War Powers Act.

Al-Awlaki was clearly al Qaeda.

So the problem isnt that someone's saying that the Constitution isn't "viable" -- the Admistration's position (which was the last Administration's position too) is that when at war, the armed forces can do these things if ordered.

You might disagree. I might disagree.

But until the Supreme Court disagrees, these actions are Constitutional.

That things are "Constitutional" doesnt make them "good" -- just means they don't violate the "rules of the road"

[Arkady Renko]

:lmao: ?

is that smiley talk for "lolwut"?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

is that smiley talk for "lolwut"?

:lolwut:

[Arkady Renko]

simply unpearable

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:facepalm:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

One minute you're tossing Baracks salad, and smoking dope on the courthouse steps. The next minute you are a right wing conservative from Alabama. Who are you, man?? :lol:

He sounded like a good idea until he got elected.





He sounds like a Libertarian to me. Look it up.

Exactly :tup:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

He sounded like a good idea until he got elected.

Exactly :tup:

Nothing Obama said during his campaign sounded even remotely libertarian ;)

[Muddy]

Hank Williams Jr. just released a song, and the chorus is "I'll take the USA and you can keep the change".. :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I heard that :lol:

[Acid Trip]

The problem is that the Constitution is all of four pages long. It makes the President commander in chief of the armed forces. We are at war with al Qaeda, under the War Powers Act.

Al-Awlaki was clearly al Qaeda.

So the problem isnt that someone's saying that the Constitution isn't "viable" -- the Admistration's position (which was the last Administration's position too) is that when at war, the armed forces can do these things if ordered.

You might disagree. I might disagree.

But until the Supreme Court disagrees, these actions are Constitutional.

That things are "Constitutional" doesnt make them "good" -- just means they don't violate the "rules of the road"

The day the government decided Al-Awlaki was al Qaeda is the day they should have revoked his US citizenship. We didn't revoke his US citizenship nor did we attempt to make him stand trial. We just killed him.

Our government comes up with all these laws and procedures and then doesn't follow them. I have a serious problem with that.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Nothing Obama said during his campaign sounded even remotely libertarian ;)

He did say he was going to pull the troops out of the Middle East, that was a big reason to me. Of course it was a lie and we got into Libia instead.

[Muddy]

He did say he was going to pull the troops out of the Middle East, that was a big reason to me. Of course it was a lie and we got into Libia instead.


Mmmmm Labia....

[Deepsepia]

The day the government decided Al-Awlaki was al Qaeda is the day they should have revoked his US citizenship. We didn't revoke his US citizenship nor did we attempt to make him stand trial. We just killed him.


I agree that we should have stripped these folks of their citizenship. By taking up arms against the US and/or by swearing allegiance to a foreign power, they have lost that citizenship even without actually being stripped of it -- I don't know enough about that. I don't believe we're able to have folks arrested and extradited from Yemen -- the place is in a civil war.



Our government comes up with all these laws and procedures and then doesn't follow them. I have a serious problem with that.

The problem is not that they're not following the law or procedure, its that there is no law or procedure for this circumstance.

The Constitution does foresee trial for treason, but there's an assumption there that you can capture someone.

I will say that in national defense, its accepted as Constitutionally legitimate for the President to order actions which will result in the death of American citizens (for example, on 9/11, the military were authorized to shoot down hijacked planes, and they still can do that).

The idea that the Constitution answers every question isn't right. Its a sketch of some rights and some procedures, but as Justice Roberts says, its very clear about some things and less clear about others.

[Acid Trip]

I agree that we should have stripped these folks of their citizenship. I don't believe we're able to have folks arrested and extradited from Yemen -- the place is in a civil war.



The problem is not that they're not following the law or procedure, its that there is no law or procedure for this circumstance.

The Constitution does foresee trial for treason, but there's an assumption there that you can capture someone.

I will say that in national defense, its accepted as Constitutionally legitimate for the President to order actions which will result in the death of American citizens (for example, on 9/11, the military were authorized to shoot down hijacked planes, and they still can do that).

The idea that the Constitution answers every question isn't right. Its a sketch of some rights and some procedures, but as Justice Roberts says, its very clear about some things and less clear about others.

I never said the Constitution answered every question. I said it's very clear that US citizens have a Constitutional right to due process. The War Powers Act and any other legislation come 2nd to the Constitution. You can't write laws or acts that supersede the Constitution. Yes, it's been done in the past (Patriot Act) but that was a giant cluster fuck if I've ever seen one. Why the Supreme Court doesn't step up on these issues is a crime in itself.

We both agree it would have been very easy to revoke their citizenship status for treason. In fact, we could have given him 30-60 days to return to the US to plead his case as to why he should keep it (if he even wants it). This could have been done years ago to get ready for the day we did find him out and about in a Jeep.

What about the other American in the Jeep? Was he "clearly al Qaeda"? He also had a right to due process.

[JoeyB]

Mmmmm Labia....

Labians! I bet we could lick them...