billcoe Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 THIS IS JUST FUCKING WRONG Elsewhere, the man has said he is innocent of the "charges" as he understands them from newspaper stories and 2nd hand, but to be killed without trial, based on ....what? Some other wack job's secret witness and testimony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 What is it about our government under this administration that renders it incapable of shutting the fuck up? You'd think there were some things that might be best left unsaid to the media. That said, he's a citizen and a reasonable attempt should be made to capture him alive. Of course, treason carries the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 (edited) Blast him. This is a war of cultures. Edited May 14, 2010 by Choada_Boy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 What is it about our government under this administration that renders it incapable of shutting the fuck up? You'd think there were some things that might be best left unsaid to the media. That said, he's a citizen and a reasonable attempt should be made to capture him alive. Of course, treason carries the death penalty. Yes, as a citizen, I want to know less. Fucking free press. We shouldn't be allowed to have this debate. After all, we don't run this country. Time is of the essence if we're going to send someone after this guy. Martin Sheen ain't gettin' any younger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I must be a dumbshit or terribly confused because I feel uneasy about the implications of this first step. The war on terror much like its cousin, the war on drugs, is open-ended with no reasonable end in sight. Both are used as justifications for changes such as the rise of a surveillance society with its attendant domestic and global militarization. Assassinations banned by executive order? Fine. Targeted killings are legally allowed under authorization provided by an act of Congress. But think about it. This governing entity has the power to compel you to do many things but so does a mugger with a gun and like a mugger it can force you to do things against your will. The salient question should be: Does Congress ever overstep its legitimate authority? Does this body exceed its authority when passing legislation, in other words, will their dictates always pass constitutional muster? [The same goes for the Executive Branch, if not more so.] Oh that’s right, the judicial branch is tasked with determining the constitutionality of the laws. They’re on the job. Right… There were times during the Bush Administration when it appeared that we were no longer a nation under the rule of law but rather under the control of a cabal of men bent on pursuing their narrow agenda. Because, what does it mean when the legality of something hinges on the definition of “reasonable”? Warrantless surveillance? That’s fine, it was considered reasonable, thus legal so no pending lawsuits to hold anyone accountable. And torture? So, what is the evidence that the imam is actively plotting attacks against the US? Oh, that’s right again, it’s an issue of national security. Transparency and openness in government are signs of weakness which the enemy can exploit. But, is he really on the hit list because his words speak with a dissident voice which some call an inspiration to jihad? How far would we go to silence those voices of opposition and what opinions would warrant a death sentence? But more importantly, will any officials who were in the administration be held legally culpable for policy that may not be constitutionally sound? But hey, it’s all a matter of interpretation and might makes right. We’ve been witness to a series of seismic events during the last 15 years or so which have ushered in momentous changes in the behavior of this republic. It seems that many of the actions performed by the administrations have been designed to elicit particular responses which fall within a range of prediction. And maybe it’s unjustified paranoia when one feels the unveiling of something that resembles what could be called a totalitarian democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted May 15, 2010 Author Share Posted May 15, 2010 Nice words Stoner. Trash: you'd have more credibility if you'd stop showing up after those long walks on the beach with your boyfriend looking like a GLAZED DONUT. ps, you service guys, when we swore the oath, it was to uphold the constitution. The US shouldn't ever follow the South America-Banana Republics path IMO. It's the road to hell for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 I got more than one boyfriend, girlfriend. And I do loves me some glazed donuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 that's nice. What about Kerry gutting the Clean Air Act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 What is it about our government under this administration that renders it incapable of shutting the fuck up? You'd think there were some things that might be best left unsaid to the media. That said, he's a citizen and a reasonable attempt should be made to capture him alive. Of course, treason carries the death penalty. Yes, as a citizen, I want to know less. Fucking free press. We shouldn't be allowed to have this debate. After all, we don't run this country. Time is of the essence if we're going to send someone after this guy. Martin Sheen ain't gettin' any younger. Why am I not surprised that you do not understand the First Amendment to the US Constitution? Here it is (LINK) so you can brush up on 5th grade. Nothing I said has any bearing on freedom of press or free speech. The Obama administration seams hell bent on giving away sensitive information (like warhead counts to Russia). I happen to think American citizens should be brought to justice but putting this at the top of every headline probably hampers that since the person in question is media savvy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 you service guys, when we swore the oath, it was to uphold the constitution. You forgot the important part of the oath imo..as it relates to this conversation... "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." If you are directly involved in trying to blow up Times Square you ARE not being targeted for what you say, but for what you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 you service guys, when we swore the oath, it was to uphold the constitution. You forgot the important part of the oath imo..as it relates to this conversation... "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." If you are directly involved in trying to blow up Times Square you ARE not being targeted for what you say, but for what you do. Time on target... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 you service guys, when we swore the oath, it was to uphold the constitution. You forgot the important part of the oath imo..as it relates to this conversation... "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; so, what did you do when Bush and his cronies trampled the constitution almost every day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 the man has said he is innocent of the "charges" as he understands them from newspaper stories and 2nd hand If you are innocent what would be wrong with turning yourself in? Not the best climate to pull that off but better than a hell fire missile lighting your ass up without notice. Anwar al-Awlaki's is an American citizen and he could turn himself in at any American Embassy. They aren't going to shoot him on sight in that situation. If Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan, had killed several 1000 in Times Square a couple of weeks ago I doubt anyone would be crying about Anwar al-Awlaki's civil rights today. "Anwar al-Awlaki's has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked through e-mails with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009 and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25. He also had ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers although the nature of association remains unclear. In May 2010, Mr. Awlaki was mentioned by Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American man accused of trying to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Mr. Shahzad said he was inspired by the violent rhetoric of Mr. Awlaki, an American official said." Doesn't sound like there is any secret as to why the US wants Anwar al-Awlaki's dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 why do you invoke the defense of the constitution to execute Americans when you apparently didn't defend it when you had the chance to do so against systemic abuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 why do you invoke the defense of the constitution to execute Americans when you apparently didn't defend it when you had the chance to do so against systemic abuse? What branch and years did you serve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 As if serving for a lie amounted to defending the constitution. Spare us the drivel, jackass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 I didn't think so. Why do you even bother living in the US? Wouldn't Europe fit your beliefs a little better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 You didn't think that serving for Bush's lies and cautioning his assault on civil liberties wasn't serving the constitution. Well, that's probably a little late for you to claim so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 Did I ever mention that places like Somalia and Afghanistan are much better suited for your type? You and your guns should consider moving there permanently on you own dime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 What's your age J_B? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted May 15, 2010 Author Share Posted May 15, 2010 so, what did you do when Bush and his cronies trampled the constitution almost every day? Probably the same thing as you except I don't attack and accuse people I don't know of things I'm imagining inside my head like you. So, what did you do when Bush and his cronies trampled the constitution almost every day? How old? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 Well, I did ask the question first but I also don't recall any of the people who are invoking a defense of the constitution today wanting to defend it against Bush and his cronies. Why did you guys wait for so long to discover that document was so precious to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 so, what did you do when Bush and his cronies trampled the constitution almost every day? Thankfully I was able to help vote Bush in and just as thankfully I helped vote him out. There are very few Constitutional scholars that can agree on the documents meaning in details so I would ease off the "trampled" statement. You may not like how "they" define its meaning, but that has been the way it has worked for 200 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 Well, I did ask the question first but I also don't recall any of the people who are invoking a defense of the constitution today wanting to defend it against Bush and his cronies. Why did you guys wait for so long to discover that document was so precious to you? What did you do? -Flap your lips -Point your finger -Rinse -Repeat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 Waiting for Chomsky videos and ripped off notions of "reasonable restrictions"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.