Hell yeah we need to assassinate this American citizen!

[Christians4LessGvt]

Would al-Awlaki qualify as a justified target if he were not a US citizen?

BT i wouldn't care if he was my own brother, if he is the enemy,
actively involved in the agenda of killing Americans then i say
smoke em! i love to see those losers come flying out of the
vehicle when we hit 'em with the hellfire missle!

Ghostriders Fire A Hellfire Missle

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would you also love to see your brother come flying out of a car if he was an evil terrorist?

Or as a conservative, would you enjoy it if they sent you a bill for the $80,000 that the missile cost?

Offing your brother with an expensive missile and then hitting the family for the cost sounds a bit like something Sheriff "Arpy" Arpaiao might do. Or perhaps the Israeli Defense Force. You have, I believe, expressed admiration for both.

Maybe they'd sell you the rights for the video: but it would have to be better than the one you put on here, because, as you can see, you don't really get to see any airborne body parts, and it should really be in color. 

[Christians4LessGvt]

Would you also love to see your brother come
flying out of a car if he was an evil terrorist?

Did you not read my post?
Go read it again!

I stated I dont care if it is my brother...if he
is involved in killing Americans...SMOKE HIM!

Or as a conservative, would you enjoy it if they sent
you a bill for the $80,000 that the missile cost?

Uh...ummmmm...lets see... $80K for a missle
or another 9/11 attack costing billions...
or some other attack like the wussy diaper bomber
blowing up a plane full of civilians
ummm lets see?
yeah....as a conservative.....i like the math and the logic of killing the enemy

[Michael Tee]

<<Would al-Awlaki qualify as a justified target if he were not a US citizen? >>

That's a whole nuther issue.  IMHO, no, because I don't believe in the War on Terror.  I think it's absurd to elevate this conflict to the status of a war, which is always between nation-states.  "War" is at most a metaphor, like the "war" on drugs, the "war" on poverty, etc.  The "terrorists" who attack the American homeland are in fact criminals in the eyes of American criminal law and the problem is one which the criminal law can adequately deal with.  The allocation of "war" status is a purely political gimmick serving various political purposes.  As a non-citizen, anyone doing what Awlaki allegedly does can be a criminal, advocating criminal actions against American citizens, but those are allegations only and the government has the burden of proving them in a court of law.  

Of course, if you believe in a "War on Terror,"  then a non-citizen doing what Awlaki allegedly does might well be a justified target.  Hell, if it's OK to smoke a kindergarten full of little Nazi babies, it must be OK to kill enemy participants in the course of a war.  That would include radio broadcasters and propagandists, whose only function is to encourage the fighters.

However, as a U.S. citizen, war or no war, Awlaki has a Constitutional right to a fair and open trial and that right has NEVER been violated by any American government preceding the last Bush administration.  Either you respect your own Constitution, or it's OK to piss all over it in the name of "War on Terror."  I'm amazed that there isn't a real shitstorm of public outrage at this blatant desecration of the Constitution.  It's an indication of how far the MSM have sunk into corporate ownership and how tightly concentrated that ownership has become.  It's also an indication of the hollowness of the idea of a "two-party" system - - there's really only ONE party, with two wings for fighting the culture wars and preserving the illusion of "freedom" and "free elections."  What bullshit.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"that right has NEVER been violated by any American government preceding the last Bush administration"

Times have changed...obviously...when President Bush and President Obama
both approve and authorize the CIA to kill a select few US citizens that have
become allied with terrorists waging war on the United States. The rule of law
is not a suicide pact for Western civilization.

[Plane]

However, as a U.S. citizen, war or no war, Awlaki has a Constitutional right to a fair and open trial and that right has NEVER been violated by any American government preceding the last Bush administration.  Either you respect your own Constitution, or it's OK to piss all over it in the name of "War on Terror."  I'm amazed that there isn't a real shitstorm of public outrage at this blatant desecration of the Constitution.  It's an indication of how far the MSM have sunk into corporate ownership and how tightly concentrated that ownership has become.  It's also an indication of the hollowness of the idea of a "two-party" system - - there's really only ONE party, with two wings for fighting the culture wars and preserving the illusion of "freedom" and "free elections."  What bullshit.

Where were you when that monster Lincon shot thousands of Americans in sight of their homes for the sake of an illusion of freedom? Without benefit of trial of course.

You would have been very usefull to the side that had little illusions about freedom. War or no war Lincon was starting a bad precident.

Or did Jackson set that precident ? Or Washington?

[Michael Tee]

<<Times have changed...obviously...>>

Times have changed?  Bullshit.  STANDARDS have changed.  War has always been with us.  Treason (or alleged treason) has always been with us.

<<when President Bush and President Obama
both approve and authorize the CIA to kill a select few US citizens that have
become allied with terrorists waging war on the United States. >>

You mean "authorize the CIA to kill a select few US citizens that have allegedly become allied with alleged "terrorists" allegedly waging war on the United States."

You don't seem to get that until the government's accusations are tested in court in a fair and open trial, they remain ONLY accusations, not crimes.  As long as the government has the power to kill without trial those whom it chooses to accuse, there is no citizen that is safe from arbitrary execution.  This is unprecedented.  It is outrageous.  It is a direct assault on the Constitution and on the Constitutional rights of each and every American citizen.  This never happened before.  Never.

If the Founding Fathers had faith in the government's ability to determine who should live or die without any trial, they would never have bothered to insert the right to a fair trial into the Constitution in the first place.  The simple fact is that they never put that much faith in the government or its bureaucracy and neither should you

<<The rule of law is not a suicide pact for Western civilization.>>

That is patently ridiculous.  Western civilization is going to self-destruct unless Awlaki is hit by a drone?  Bullshit, bullshit AND bullshit.  He is not that important.  A thousand guys like him are not that important.  Never have been and never will be.  The whole "not a suicide pact" is a smart-ass buzz-phrase used by the enemies of the rule of law to belittle the rule of law and make it appear dangerous and subversive.  The real danger and subversion of course coming from the enemies of the rule of law, who are willing to use any pathetic "threat" they can find (and Awlaki is certainly a prime example) to scare and panic those who uphold the rule of law.  If they have their way, Awlaki will be dead, the Bill of Rights will be dead, and America will not be one per cent safer because there have always been guys like Awlaki and there always will be.

[Plane]

You mean "authorize the CIA to kill a select few US citizens that have allegedly become allied with alleged "terrorists" allegedly waging war on the United States."

Don't worry they are only alledgedly going to kill him , then he will only alledgedly be dead.

You don't seem to get that until the government's accusations are tested in court in a fair and open trial, they remain ONLY accusations, not crimes.  As long as the government has the power to kill without trial those whom it chooses to accuse, there is no citizen that is safe from arbitrary execution.  This is unprecedented.  It is outrageous.  It is a direct assault on the Constitution and on the Constitutional rights of each and every American citizen.  This never happened before.  Never.

The Civil War ,may I remind you, did not start with a trial for each of the American citizens that the government was about to stack like cords of wood. Every war is like this Never diffrent .
Awlaki has declaired himself a soldier of the war , he should expect to be treated as a soldier of the war , since when have soldiers demanded trials before battle?

[Plane]

That's a whole nuther issue.  IMHO, no, because I don't believe in the War on Terror.  I think it's absurd to elevate this conflict to the status of a war, which is always between nation-states.

My bullshit detector goes off every time this gets said.
How can I pay attention to the rest of any arguements while the bullshit decetor is makeing such a racket?
Since when has  "war" been defined as always between nation-states?

[Michael Tee]

<<The Civil War ,may I remind you, did not start with a trial for each of the American citizens that the government was about to stack like cords of wood. Every war is like this Never diffrent .>>

Speaking of bullshit detectors, mine went off like a house on fire in regards to one of your previous posts in this thread, which I meant to answer, but never got around to, and now this.  Are you actually claiming that Lincoln made up hit lists of Southerners to be assassinated without charges or trial?  Because I really was not aware of this.  Please elaborate.

<<Awlaki has declaired himself a soldier of the war , he should expect to be treated as a soldier of the war , since when have soldiers demanded trials before battle?>>

Since when can Awlaki's status be determined by his own statements?  Had he claimed to be the Messiah, would that mean that he could expect to be treated as the Messiah?  Even if his words amount to a renunciation of US citizenship, that renunciation would have to be proved in a court of law, it is not up to you or some government bureaucrat to determine "Well, that's it!  He's just renounced his citizenship by those words, so he's predator fodder now."   You don't even trust the fucking bureaucracy to regulate the health insurance industry, but here you are giving it the power to decide whether an American citizen lives or dies.  How come?

[sirs]

<<Awlaki has declaired himself a soldier of the war , he should expect to be treated as a soldier of the war , since when have soldiers demanded trials before battle?>>

Since when can Awlaki's status be determined by his own statements?  Had he claimed to be the Messiah, would that mean that he could expect to be treated as the Messiah?  Even if his words amount to a renunciation of US citizenship, that renunciation would have to be proved in a court of law

Tee has really gone where no man has gone before, with that tripe     

[Plane]

  Are you actually claiming that Lincoln made up hit lists of Southerners to be assassinated without charges or trial?  Because I really was not aware of this.  Please elaborate.
............................................
Since when can Awlaki's status be determined by his own statements? ................

So you don't think of the President of the US who presided over trhe most ruinous war the US has ever had to be a bloodthirsty scaliwag? Why not ? Lincon was completely right on the question of abolition of slavery , and had a good point to make on the preservation of the union , it is good that he won out. However, every casualty of the Civil war is on his hands because he had oppurtunity to do otherwise and allow the divorce. The Civil war ws an elective war a war of choice , as very few other wars ,the choice of an individual.

By the way , has anyone ever broken Lincons record for hanging the most persons on a single gallows at one time? This record might last a while.

..............................................................

So he can't confess to treason and present evidence against himself and commit even more crime in view of the public and every Marshall who owns a TV AND join forces with the soldiers of Al Queda but cannot do or say anything that makes him vunerable to executive action?

Lots of soldiers get shot on sight , lots of criminals get shot while trying to evade arrest, what is the uncommon element of this?

[Xavier_Onassis]

By the way , has anyone ever broken Lincons record for hanging the most persons on a single gallows at one time? This record might last a while.

When and where was that?
Lincoln was not responsible for hanging the various people involved in the conspiracy to assassinate him, by the way.

========================
FIRST you say that Lincoln was right to free the slaves and to preserve the Union.

THEN you say that he was wrong to have not just allowed the South to secede. So hoe, pray tell, would he have freed the slaves and preserved the Union by allowing the Secession?

I agree that since the states voluntarily decided to join the Union, they also logically had the right to leave it. That makes logical sense, but it hardly makes geopolitical sense. One could envision a WWII with the Brits allied with the Union and the Germans with the Confederacy, though had the US never gotten involved with WWI, there might have been no Nazi movement later on. Maximilian and the French Emperor Napoleon III had the intention of invading the US once they subdued the Mexicans, by the way. Certainly the Union and the Confederacy, once separated, would have been unlikely to have rejoined at some later date: a divided US was to the advantage of every concerned European power.

I decided long ago that at some point in the Spring of 1861, had I been alive at that time, I would have struck out for Idaho. There was a modest gold rush, and I would have known where to dig.

No way I would die for either side in the Civil War. Mark Twain had the right idea about this. He didn't even have to pay the $300 to hire someone to replace him in th4e ranks, as did Theodore Roosevelt's father.

One more or one fewer soldier would not have made a difference, like one vote. I always vote, but voting is never fatal, as is being a soldier.

[Michael Tee]

<<So you don't think of the President of the US who presided over trhe most ruinous war the US has ever had to be a bloodthirsty scaliwag? >>

You are avoiding answering my question, which did not in any way involve the "issue" of whether or not Lincoln was a "bloodthirsty scallawag?"  Personally, I think that the more racist bastards he killed, the better a man he was.  Consider each one of those evil, slaving, racist, immoral bastards to be a sacrifice laid on the altar of God Almighty, who hates slavers and slavery.  As Jews we pray every year at Passover to thank God for freeing us from Egyptian slavery.  Do we consider our God to be a "bloodthirsty scallawag" for slaying the firstborn sons of the Egyptians or drowning their fucking army in the Red Sea?  Fuck 'em.  If they offended God by enslaving their fellow human beings, they deserved the worst that could befall them.  Their deaths are a source of rejoicing, not recrimination.

<<Lincon was completely right on the question of abolition of slavery . . . >>

Wow, you must be a man of the New South I used to read about.  How progressive.

<< . . .  and had a good point to make on the preservation of the union , it is good that he won out. >>

Yeah, imagine those fucking racist bastards winning?  They'd have joined forces with Hitler 80 years on down the road.  White Power!!!

<<However, every casualty of the Civil war is on his hands . . . >>

God-damn right it is, and it's too fucking bad he didn't kill ten times as many, maybe then the Jim Crow of the next hundred years would not have had to happen.

<< . . . because he had oppurtunity to do otherwise and allow the divorce. The Civil war ws an elective war a war of choice , as very few other wars ,the choice of an individual.>>

Well, a lot of black folk are plenty happy that he chose what he chose, just like a lot of white racist bastards in the South are really pissed off about it.  I bet every time they pull their hoods over their heads, they curse that bastard Lincoln.

<<By the way , has anyone ever broken Lincons record for hanging the most persons on a single gallows at one time? This record might last a while.>>

I dunno, are you ever going to answer my question, did Lincoln produce a hit list of Southerners to be targeted for assassination or did he not?

..............................................................
<<Lots of soldiers get shot on sight  . . . >>

I guess they do, in combat.  Did Lincoln ever produce a list of Southerners or Southern sympathizers or supporters to be assassinated, or did he not?

<< . . .  lots of criminals get shot while trying to evade arrest>>

Yeah, when there's an arrest warrant or they're caught in the act and fleeing.  Always with an inquiry to ensure that reasonable force was applied and no other alternative existed.  Did Lincoln ever produce a list of Southerners or Southern sympathizers or supporters to be assassinated, or did he not?

<<what is the uncommon element of this?>>

Once again, this is a list of U.S. citizens to be killed.  A hit list.  It's not an arrest warrant, it's not use of reasonable force in the course of pursuing a fleeing suspect caught in the act, it's not one soldier shooting another on the battlefield, it's not a guy dodging a warrant (there hasn't been a warrant cuz there haven't been any charges) - -

Geeze, plane, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were running out of false analogies.  But that would be selling you short.

Anyway, you gonna answer my question or not?  (I highlighted this in red for you to make it easier to find.)

[Plane]

.......I agree that since the states voluntarily decided to join the Union, they also logically had the right to leave it........

...... you say that Lincoln was right to free the slaves and to preserve the Union.

Yep, Lincon had to cheat the rules severely in order to do a good thing.

He also suspended Habeis corpus and refused to exchange prisoners of war.

You are pretty close to getting my point , no way President Obama has twisted the constitution into knots as much as Lincon did , we generally want the Constitution respected but Lincon gets a lot of forgiveness in this question.

Obama will too, if he is as successfull at getting good done.