U.S. citizen al-Awlaki was executed by the U.S. government on the grounds of allegations of terrorist designs against the U.S.
The order for the execution makes a lie of those talking heads who said that it was justified in cases, whereby it would be difficult for the U.S. military to "arrest" the targeted individuals and bring them to trial.
Dangerous precedence, or does it not matter?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The random killing of individuals outside the U.S. borders plus the ramping up of imperialist actions are just to gain points with the "undecided" right wingers for the reappointment election. Anything to get that second shot at the Oval Office.
But not the right strategy since the economy is much more important to those voters. Obama never read serious book in economics nor does he understand the subject that much. This means he must rely on self-serving neoliberal "experts" who themselves are out of their ideological depth in all this.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer:
''Dangerous precedence, or does it not matter?''
It has precedence. George Bush started this machine in September, 2001. But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world. Also once the precedent was set in motion (2001) it probably was uncaring as to what lawyers today would have to haggle over by the recent droning of Awliki and a few others. And no it won't matter in the end if Awliki was U.S. born. Plus Awliki is laughing at everyone down here: he's got those virgins in heaven waiting on him. That's probably the reason he took the course in life he has: to hasten his own killing process.
If the newspaper accounts were/are accurate then no thought was given to the innocent Kenyans and Tanzanians who were killed and maimed and blinded in the embassy bombings quite a few years ago. Their guilt was they were working with and around westerners; that was enough for the ragheads to justify killing black Africans. The blasts killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. Some 5,000 people were injured. Of those injured it is my recall about 150 people were blinded; not to mention those who lost limbs and other parts of their anatomy.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Lamin:
quote:The random killing of individuals outside the U.S. borders plus the ramping up of imperialist actions are just to gain points with the "undecided" right wingers for the reappointment election. Anything to get that second shot at the Oval Office.
No, the killing wasn't random. There is nothing random about a drone enabled with gps tracking devices and informants on the ground in Yemen, undoubtedly, to assist those with video controllers thousand of miles away to carry out the mission. this was malice aforethought with 'legal representation' which easily translates into a ''does it matter.'' And I can't see right wingers giving credit to anything Obama does, so Awliki in my opinion has nothing to do with a 'second shot.'
quote:''Obama never read serious book in economics nor does he understand the subject that much.''
John McCain said during his campaign against Obama he didn't know much about economics. Isn't that why presidents hire people who are trained in that discipline? To see through with economic policies that ''bridge the gap'' left over or 'omitted' by former administrations and presidents? If Obama had a degree in economics would or should his view and understanding trump an international forum on economic matters who seemingly would be more versed in the nuances of a world economy, which by now, is intermingled with the opposition economies? You will recall economists routinely disagree with one another, international or local. So who's right.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: The Explorer:
''Dangerous precedence, or does it not matter?''
It has precedence. George Bush started this machine in September, 2001.
Where are we informed of a made-public U.S. government policy of assassinating U.S. citizens on mere government allegations without going through due process, prior to Obama?
quote: But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world.
Exactly.
quote:
Also once the precedent was set in motion (2001) it probably was uncaring as to what lawyers today would have to haggle over by the recent droning of Awliki and a few others. And no it won't matter in the end if Awliki was U.S. born.
Even John Walker Lindh who was caught, and said to be engaging in battle against American forces alongside the Taliban, was given a veneer of due process. He wasn't simply executed on the spot on the allegation that he was a terrorist or that he was seeking to kill American troops. Is that not reflective of a drastic shift, in the way al-Awlaki was handled in contrast?
If al-Awlaki's handling won't matter as you say, government executions of U.S. citizens can become a common place from hereon, justified on mere government allegations, whereby the government feels no need to go through legal proceedings. Who's to say otherwise?
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer asks,
''Where are we informed of a made-public U.S. government policy of assassinating U.S. citizens on mere government allegations without going through due process, prior to Obama?
But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world.
That's why I said this:
''It has precedence. George Bush started this machine in September, 2001. But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world. Also once the precedent was set in motion (2001) it probably was uncaring as to what lawyers today would have to haggle over by the recent droning of Awliki and a few others. And no it won't matter in the end if Awliki was U.S. born.
''Even John Walker Lindh who was caught, and said to be engaging in battle against American forces alongside the Taliban, was given a veneer of due process. He wasn't simply executed on the spot on the allegation that he was a terrorist or that he was seeking to kill American troops. Is that not reflective of a drastic shift, in the way al-Awlaki was handled in contrast?''
Jonn Walker was a U.S. white boy novelty in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban. John Walker was not a terrorist. Once he survived the killing machine and captured on the battlefield he was given some measure of process. He was placed on one of the U.S. ships at sea and given the proper medical treatment according to what I read. Now there may be records stashed someplace in government that says Walker was an Awliki-type but I haven't seen anything to that effect published in the local newspaper and the national television news about him so I can't comment further except to say his family has done a remarkable job of keeping him away from prying eyes over the years.
However... if John Walker appeared on the scene today in Afghanistan and voiced threats about killing westerners then showing some signs he could carry out, or at least be associated with those who have the capability, then yes the U.S. government would definitely deem him suitable for a drone attack; and any innocent people standing alongside him--unfortunately.
The problem with Awliki is he couldn't keep his mouth shut. I'm sure many millions of people around the world hate Americans for their policies. Yet there are only so many who can articulate the killing policies against the U.S and go on video saying the same. That's why Awliki was drone material.
''If al-Awlaki's handling won't matter as you say, government executions of U.S. citizens can become a common place from hereon, justified on mere government allegations, whereby the government feels no need to go through legal proceedings. Who's to say otherwise?//
Most people in this country couldn't care less about the street Arabs who dance symbolically on flags and yelling death to America; they understand this-and this includes African Americans, Mexican/Americans, European/Americans, and any of the other multitude of nationalities available to comment on Awliki. What they *do* care about is the ''basement Arab'' who will take matters into their own hands. And some Americans actually understand what their grievances are as it regards U.S. policies concerning the Palestinians and Israelis. What they don't understand is someone telling Americans they will be targeted and killed and having the U.S. not take action when information that can be *interpreted* as hostile is available. While droning on U.S soil is out of the question, political enforcers aren't as restrained on foreign lands.
Here's something to think about. Awliki's Dad said, according to an Associated Press article which was posted in the local newspaper a day or so after his son was killed, that he was an All American boy. Yes I'm sure he was. What the dad failed to realize, or maybe he did, was All American boys *do kill* all American boys.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
fuk obama!
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
^ Of the seven candidates, Perry, Cain, Romney,Santorum, Huntsmans, Bachmann and Paul, which of the group would you prefer to pick on as president?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The Explorer asks,
''Where are we informed of a made-public U.S. government policy of assassinating U.S. citizens on mere government allegations without going through due process, prior to Obama?
But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world.
That's why I said this:
''It has precedence. George Bush started this machine in September, 2001. But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world. Also once the precedent was set in motion (2001) it probably was uncaring as to what lawyers today would have to haggle over by the recent droning of Awliki and a few others. And no it won't matter in the end if Awliki was U.S. born.
You are merely repeating a post that the follow up question was on, precisely because it lacks the information being asked for (highlighted above, if you care to answer the next try). Not good.
quote: The Explorer asks,
...
But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world.
You are actually quoting yourself here.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
''Even John Walker Lindh who was caught, and said to be engaging in battle against American forces alongside the Taliban, was given a veneer of due process. He wasn't simply executed on the spot on the allegation that he was a terrorist or that he was seeking to kill American troops. Is that not reflective of a drastic shift, in the way al-Awlaki was handled in contrast?''
Jonn Walker was a U.S. white boy novelty in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban. John Walker was not a terrorist.
Are you saying John Walker is not considered a terrorist because he is a "white boy novelty"?
Furthermore:
According to your understanding, does the U.S. government consider or not consider the Taliban "terrorists"? If the latter, how does Walker's aiding them not qualify him as a "terrorist" as well?
On the account that Walker is considered a U.S. citizen and an enemy of the U.S. government, and it is safe to say the same is true for al-Awlaki, what justifies the assassination of one enemy and not the other?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
However... if John Walker appeared on the scene today in Afghanistan and voiced threats about killing westerners then showing some signs he could carry out, or at least be associated with those who have the capability, then yes the U.S. government would definitely deem him suitable for a drone attack; and any innocent people standing alongside him--unfortunately.
I could be reading you wrong here, but you seem to be admitting that there has indeed been a shift (I noted earlier) in U.S. policy, whereby in the past Walker was captured and given a veneer of due process, today in contrast, he would likely be assassinated as well. Am I on track here?
quote: The problem with Awliki is he couldn't keep his mouth shut. I'm sure many millions of people around the world hate Americans for their policies. Yet there are only so many who can articulate the killing policies against the U.S and go on video saying the same. That's why Awliki was drone material.
I think you are overlooking a key matter here: It is the U.S. government assassinating an American citizen on the government's allegations.
If the U.S. government is so certain about its allegations, should it not simply uphold its professed democratic principles on all U.S. citizens, that they be given due process and allowed to defend themselves against charges.
Vicious murderers in the U.S., who kill other U.S. citizens, are by convention, given due process before they are executed, no matter how heinous the crime. Why should this not be extended to al-Awlaki as a U.S. citizen?
Timothy McVeigh, by all accounts, was also a U.S. citizen and a terrorist. Even he was given the benefit of a legal process before put to death.
quote: ''If al-Awlaki's handling won't matter as you say, government executions of U.S. citizens can become a common place from hereon, justified on mere government allegations, whereby the government feels no need to go through legal proceedings. Who's to say otherwise?//
Most people in this country couldn't care less about the street Arabs who dance symbolically on flags and yelling death to America
But they should care about how the U.S. government upholds its professed "democratic" principles towards U.S. citizens, shouldn't they? And al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen; that's the issue!
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
I said:
quote:''It has precedence. George Bush started this machine in September, 2001. But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world. Also once the precedent was set in motion (2001) it probably was uncaring as to what lawyers today would have to haggle over by the recent droning of Awliki and a few others. And no it won't matter in the end if Awliki was U.S. born.
you responded with:
''You are merely repeating a post that the follow up question was on, precisely because it lacks the information being asked for (highlighted above, if you care to answer the next try). Not good.''
The specific information you needed was bolded. It wasn't the first time because I didn't feel it was necessary for you. I see it was afterwards so I highlighted it for you.
Me initially:
But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world. ...then Explorer:
''You are actually quoting yourself here.''
...but you don't see the reason for it.
The Explorer:
''Are you saying John Walker is not considered a terrorist because he is a "white boy novelty" ''?
No. I'm saying John Walker was not a terrorist. I don't recall seeing anything that says he was. He simply wanted to fight for the Taliban; I guess he liked what they stand for. The newspaper articles at the time were perplexed that a white American boy could do what he was doing. That's why I said a novelty.
''Furthermore:
According to your understanding, does the U.S. government consider or not consider the Taliban "terrorists"? If the latter, how does Walker's aiding them not qualify him as a "terrorist" as well?''
From what I've read the U.S. government sees the Taliban as a repressive group of individuals in Afghanistan. I've seen no statements from the U.S. government or any other country for that matter labelling the Taliban as terrorists. However in October, 2001 because the Taliban government wouldn't give up Bin Laden, who was considered a terrorist by the U.S., the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
''On the account that Walker is considered a U.S. citizen and an enemy of the U.S. government, and it is safe to say the same is true for al-Awlaki, what justifies the assassination of one enemy and not the other?''
Your sentence reads like you know the U.S. government considers Walker an ''enemy of the state''. Since he was captured I've seen no evidence that he is considered anything other than what he was at the time and that is a combatant for the Taliban and a white boy novelty (my characterization). And why are you trying to get me to admit to an unknown concerning Walker? Walker has been silent the past ten years as far as I can see. Awliki hasn't. Awliki would be alive today had he not left the U.S. and made the threats he has according to what I've read. At this point I see no need to rework any of my comments concerning Awliki. For a refresher see what I've already said about him.
''I could be reading you wrong here, but you seem to be admitting that there has indeed been a shift (I noted earlier) in U.S. policy, whereby in the past Walker was captured and given a veneer of due process, today in contrast, he would likely be assassinated as well. Am I on track here?''
There is no shift in my position. Walker has nothing to do with Awliki as far as I can see and he should be removed from further consideration and comment by you. As noted in a previous comment Walker has been secreted away from public scrutiny by whomever. If information surfaces to the effect Walker has joined Al-Qaeda and highfiving with Awliki then you can bring him up again.
''I think you are overlooking a key matter here: It is the U.S. government assassinating an American citizen on the government's allegations.
If the U.S. government is so certain about its allegations, should it not simply uphold its professed democratic principles on all U.S. citizens, that they be given due process and allowed to defend themselves against charges.''
In principle I agree. but the problem as I see it is Awliki would seem to be capable of much more than your 'vicious murderers in the U.S.' Yet him being Arab may have something to do with it; maybe all of it.
''Timothy McVeigh, by all accounts, was also a U.S. citizen and a terrorist. Even he was given the benefit of a legal process before put to death.''
This may have something to do with McVeigh committing the crime in the U.S. Evidently the authorities didn't want to take a chance on Awlaki to see if he could pull off a McVeigh. I'm guessing they took him at his word of death and destruction as opposed to McVeigh being silent in his intentions.
''But they should care about how the U.S. government upholds its professed "democratic" principles towards U.S. citizens, shouldn't they? And al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen; that's the issue!''
Democratic principles can be applied to vicious murderers. But those same upholders of those principles suspend them when it comes to guys like Awlaki. He can be likened to yelling fire in a theater and the potential (I read) for setting it.
What needs to remembered is no one will march in the streets for those whom are designated enemies of the state. Again, most people don't care.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
That guy in the link can't be Obama, his ears don't stick out far enough.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The specific information you needed was bolded. It wasn't the first time because I didn't feel it was necessary for you. I see it was afterwards so I highlighted it for you.
The information I needed was a public-document or statement from George Bush that says U.S. citizens can be targets of assassination without requiring due process. Care to locate it for me in your "bolded" comment?
quote:
Me initially:
But... George didn't say specifically about targeting U.S. born, just terrorists anywhere in the world. ...then Explorer:
''You are actually quoting yourself here.''
...but you don't see the reason for it.
But I did see the contradiction between it and your preceding claim that George Bush put in place, that policy of targeting U.S. citizens for assassination without legal proceeding.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
From what I've read the U.S. government sees the Taliban as a repressive group of individuals in Afghanistan. I've seen no statements from the U.S. government or any other country for that matter labelling the Taliban as terrorists. However in October, 2001 because the Taliban government wouldn't give up Bin Laden, who was considered a terrorist by the U.S., the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
Then I gather you must not watch television much. Whom are the U.S. officials calling "we are killing terrorists" in Afghanistan, long after bin Laden had moved to Pakistan?
quote:
Your sentence reads like you know the U.S. government considers Walker an ''enemy of the state''. Since he was captured I've seen no evidence that he is considered anything other than what he was at the time and that is a combatant for the Taliban and a white boy novelty (my characterization).
Okay. As far as you are concerned, the Taliban are the enemy of the state, but someone fighting for them against U.S. forces is not, and that's the way the U.S. government will see it. Am I accurate in assessing your mentality?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
And why are you trying to get me to admit to an unknown concerning Walker? Walker has been silent the past ten years as far as I can see. Awliki hasn't.
How do you figure I'm trying to get you to "admit" something, as opposed to examining the consistency in your ideology?
What is supposed to be "unknown" about Walker?
My concern is treatment meted out to one U.S. citizen accused of misconduct from outside U.S. borders and that meted out to another, also accused of misconduct from outside U.S. borders. Your concern seems to be that Walker has been silenced whereas Awlaki wasn't until now?
quote: Awliki would be alive today had he not left the U.S. and made the threats he has according to what I've read. At this point I see no need to rework any of my comments concerning Awliki. For a refresher see what I've already said about him.
How do you figure he would be alive, doing what he is accused of, had he not left the U.S.? If the U.S. government really wanted to capture him alive in Yemen, it could have just as well done that, if it was capable of drawing intelligence on the ground to give it directions to kill him, don't you think?
Are you of the mindset that the U.S. government is justified in dropping all pretense of upholding its professed "democratic principles" towards all U.S. citizens, if said citizens cross outside U.S. borders?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
In principle I agree. but the problem as I see it is Awliki would seem to be capable of much more than your 'vicious murderers in the U.S.' Yet him being Arab may have something to do with it; maybe all of it.
Do you have proof that Awlaki has killed more U.S. citizens on U.S. soil than someone actually on U.S. soil, like say, Timothy McVeigh, or the Columbine shooters?
And the way you see it, if you are a U.S. citizen, but an "Arab", then all bets are off; you cannot be treated like a citizen; correct?
quote: ''Timothy McVeigh, by all accounts, was also a U.S. citizen and a terrorist. Even he was given the benefit of a legal process before put to death.''
This may have something to do with McVeigh committing the crime in the U.S.
Walker supposedly committed a crime outside the U.S. He too was given a smokescreen of legal proceeding.
quote:
Evidently the authorities didn't want to take a chance on Awlaki to see if he could pull off a McVeigh. I'm guessing they took him at his word of death and destruction as opposed to McVeigh being silent in his intentions.
How many U.S. citizens have been executed in the U.S. supposedly on *allegations* alone about threats against public officials? Or are you again of the mindset, that once you leave U.S. borders, you cease to be a citizen?
quote:Democratic principles can be applied to vicious murderers. But those same upholders of those principles suspend them when it comes to guys like Awlaki. He can be likened to yelling fire in a theater and the potential (I read) for setting it.
I don't know if you realize that you are in effect saying that said "upholders of those democratic principles" are a bunch of hypocrites.
quote: What needs to remembered is no one will march in the streets for those whom are designated enemies of the state. Again, most people don't care.
Then they would be careless to their own detriment. If they could care less about dismantling of democratic principles towards a single U.S. citizen, no matter the allegation, then they are setting stage for its extension onto themselves or their close relatives at some point.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:No, the killing wasn't random. There is nothing random about a drone enabled with gps tracking devices and informants on the ground in Yemen, undoubtedly, to assist those with video controllers thousand of miles away to carry out the mission. this was malice aforethought with 'legal representation' which easily translates into a ''does it matter.'' And I can't see right wingers giving credit to anything Obama does, so Awliki in my opinion has nothing to do with a 'second shot.'
It's random because anybody could be put on that secret hit list and labeled a "terrorist". And there are those not on the list just passing by who end up being vapourised like a rainbow mist.
Sure, the right wingers love to see the occupant of the WH plundering, bombing and killing to his their own hearts' content. That's what political action is all about. Do whatever you think will get you some votes. Doesn't apply to the blacks because they are just so happy to see a tanned face with black wife at the WH--so anything will go, including neglect. With all that neglect 85% minimum will vote for Michelle again.
Think of the U.S. president as a mega-CEO. You have a council of economic advisers--all of whom will not agree with each other. So the ultimate decision-maker must listen to all sides then make decisions. If you never read Keynes, Marx, Schumpeter, Samuelson, Sraffa, Friedman, etc. how the heck would you know how to make some knowledgeable decisions?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Grumman, You could get tied up in your own statements concerning "the state"--unless, of course, you are arguing that the U.S. is exceptional in this regard.
If not then why the U.S. fuss about Assad of Syria killing those whom his government sees as "enemies of the state"? And the same for the loud noises and actions--bombs, assassinations--the U.S. engages against states that it perceives as "dictatorships" or just "undemocratic". My answer is the usual: Just hypocrisy.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer:
The information I needed was a public-document or statement from George Bush that says U.S. citizens can be targets of assassination without requiring due process. Care to locate it for me in your "bolded" comment?
The information I was referring to came from an Associated Press article by Matt Apuzzo dated October 1, 2011, Saturday. If the following information is incorrect then it needs to be taken up with Apuzzo and the Associated Press.
Obama navigating uncharted territory
Washington: President Barack Obama steered the nation's war machine into uncharted territory Friday when a U.S. drone attacked a convoy in Yemen and killed two American citizens who had become central figures in al-Qaida.
It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so. And it raised major questions about the limitations of presidential power.
Anwar al-Awlaki, the target of the U.S. drone attack, was one of the best known al-Qaida figures after Osama bin Laden. American intelligence officials had linked him to two nearly catastrophic attacks on U.S.-bound planes, an airliner on Christmas 2009 and cargo planes last year. The second American killed in the drone attack, Samir Khan, was the editor of Inspire, a slick online magazine aimed at al-Qaida sympathizers in the west.
Republicans and democrats alike applauded the decision to launch the fatal assault on the convoy in Yemen.
''It's something we had to do,'' said Rep.Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. ''The president is showing leadership. The president has guts.'' ''It's legal,'' said Maryland Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committeee. ''It's legitimate and we're taking out someone who has attempted to attack us on numerous occasions. And he was on that list.''
That list is the roster of people the White House has authorized the CIA and Pentagon to kill or capture as terrorists. The evidence against them almost always is classified.
The list has included dozens of names, from little-known figures in the wilds of Pakistan to bin Laden, who was killed in his compound in a comfortable Pakistani suburb. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I'm fairly certain that this is not a publicly accessible Bush administration document or word of George Bush sanctioning the assassination of U.S. citizens without worrying about legal proceeding.
Furthermore, this news article only reinforces the understanding that assassinating U.S. citizens without due process made its debut under the Obama administration.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''How do you figure I'm trying to get you to "admit" something, as opposed to examining the consistency in your ideology?
''What is supposed to be "unknown" about Walker?''
Actually ideology isn't the answer you are looking for. You probably intended to say analysis. That better suits what's being discussed. And you referenced Walker a couple of times, maybe more, the past two days. Walker doesn't fit the Awlaki type. That is an unknown. Walker has been silent for ten years or so. I don't know anything about Walker other than he once was a combatant for the Taliban. Anything you continue to bring up concerning him is an unknown.
Okay here we have your ideology which is treatment.
''My concern is treatment meted out to one U.S. citizen accused of misconduct from outside U.S. borders and that meted out to another, also accused of misconduct from outside U.S. borders. Your concern seems to be that Walker has been silenced whereas Awlaki wasn't until now?''
I have no idea whether ''Walker has been silenced''; how did you arrive at this considering what I've said about Walker thus far? I said Walker has been silent the past ten years. I don't have a clue why other than a guess and that guess will have nothing to do with terrorism unless new information comes out saying he's in with aL-Qaida.
If Walker can be accused of anything then it may have something to with an American national fighting against American forces in a foreign land not of his birth. Yet Walker's misconduct you are referring to has nothing to do with Awlaki's position, which, according to the authorities, is terrorism. Walker was a disgruntled white boy fighting for the Taliban. Walker was not a terrorist from what I've read over the years.
''How do you figure he would be alive, doing what he is accused of, had he not left the U.S.?''
Awlaki would be in prison if he did those things while in the U.S.; probably awaiting execution. On the other hand I don't believe his fiery rhetoric would have allowed him to get that far before the authorities acted because he already was under suspicion. He knew this so he left the country and ultimately paid for it with his life. ''If the U.S. government really wanted to capture him alive in Yemen, it could have just as well done that, if it was capable of drawing intelligence on the ground to give it directions to kill him, don't you think?'' Yes, for an honest answer. But you just said ''If the U.S. government really wanted to.''
''Are you of the mindset that the U.S. government is justified in dropping all pretense of upholding its professed "democratic principles" towards all U.S. citizens, if said citizens cross outside U.S. borders?'' Not all U.S. citizens--just the ones that will do what the authorities have accused Awlaki of doing. If the citizen can stand on a soap box the way they do in that london, England park, and preach hate then I see nothing wrong with that type of speech. If that speech turns into action then all bets are off.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''I'm fairly certain that this is not a publicly accessible Bush administration document or word of George Bush sanctioning the assassination of U.S. citizens without worrying about legal proceeding.''
Agreed. It's probably never going to be found either.
''Furthermore, this news article only reinforces the understanding that assassinating U.S. citizens without due process made its debut under the Obama administration.''
Not according to the article. Matt Apuzzo starts out that way but proceeds to damage his view by printing the rest of the story.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Agreed. It's probably never going to be found either.
Which is why I'm puzzled by your claim that assassinating U.S. citizens without legal proceedings has its precedence in the Bush administration as government policy.
quote: Not according to the article. Matt Apuzzo starts out that way but proceeds to damage his view by printing the rest of the story.
From the article that you posted:
President Barack Obama steered the nation's war machine into uncharted territory Friday when a U.S. drone attacked a convoy in Yemen and killed two American citizens who had become central figures in al-Qaida.
It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so. And it raised major questions about the limitations of presidential power.
Do you want to rethink your comment above, and perhaps read your articles before you post them in the future?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Actually ideology isn't the answer you are looking for. You probably intended to say analysis. That better suits what's being discussed. And you referenced Walker a couple of times, maybe more, the past two days. Walker doesn't fit the Awlaki type. That is an unknown. Walker has been silent for ten years or so. I don't know anything about Walker other than he once was a combatant for the Taliban. Anything you continue to bring up concerning him is an unknown.
When you say that one of two or more antagonists or so-called enemies of the U.S. government deserves to be assassinated but not the other(s), that is not reflective of an objective consideration.
When you say that democratic principles towards a single citizen should be dropped, because you don't like them or because of mere government accusations, that is not indicative of objective thinking.
It's also strange that you take a position on the treatment of Walker without knowing anything about him.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Okay here we have your ideology which is treatment.
Where is the "ideology" in examining the consistency of your ideology?
quote: I have no idea whether ''Walker has been silenced''; how did you arrive at this considering what I've said about Walker thus far? I said Walker has been silent the past ten years. I don't have a clue why other than a guess and that guess will have nothing to do with terrorism unless new information comes out saying he's in with aL-Qaida.
The idea that Walker has been silent ('silenced' - my paraphrase) came from you. Why even mention it, if you didn't think he was silenced? Would he have been that way today, if the government had not imprisoned him?
quote: If Walker can be accused of anything then it may have something to with an American national fighting against American forces in a foreign land not of his birth. Yet Walker's misconduct you are referring to has nothing to do with Awlaki's position, which, according to the authorities, is terrorism. Walker was a disgruntled white boy fighting for the Taliban. Walker was not a terrorist from what I've read over the years.
The government's supposed beef against Awlaki, is that he is conspiring to "kill Americans". When Walker shoots at U.S. forces, his intention then is to "kill Americans". It's odd that you find a distinction to the ends of means.
Additionally, you claim that local terrorists like McVeigh or the Columbine shooters, who've actually killed more Americans on American soil than anything Awlaki has been able to pull off, don't deserve the treatment Awlaki had received -- assassination without due process.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Awlaki would be in prison if he did those things while in the U.S.; probably awaiting execution.
How can you know that for certain, if the government policy is to assassinate citizens and others on mere allegations without trial?
quote:
Yes, for an honest answer. But you just said ''If the U.S. government really wanted to.''
Which is why it is logically-wanting that you'd defend the assassination of U.S. citizens based on hearsay government allegations, without trial.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
''Are you of the mindset that the U.S. government is justified in dropping all pretense of upholding its professed "democratic principles" towards all U.S. citizens, if said citizens cross outside U.S. borders?''
Not all U.S. citizens--just the ones that will do what the authorities have accused Awlaki of doing. If the citizen can stand on a soap box the way they do in that london, England park, and preach hate then I see nothing wrong with that type of speech. If that speech turns into action then all bets are off.
Yet according to you, "democratic principles" should steadfastly be upheld for U.S. citizens on soil, who actually do what Awlaki was only "accused" of. Your logic, which is embattled with inconsistency, tacitly says that "democratic principles" don't apply to U.S. citizens once they cross outside U.S. borders. This is why I call your positions "ideology".
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
I was wondering how you could have responded the way you did after I posted Appuzzo's article. Somehow the rest of it wasn't highlighted when I posted. So here you go. This is where Apuzzo's article unravels.
Before al-Awlaki, no American had been on the list.
But the legal process that led to his death was set in motion a decade ago. On September 17, 2001, President George Bush signed a presidential order authorizing the CIA to hunt down terrorists worldwide. The authority was rooted in his power as commander in chief, leading a nation at war with al-Qaida.
The order made no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens. If they posed a ''continuing and imminent threat'' to the United States, they were eligible to be killed, former intelligence officials said.
The order was reviewed by top lawyers at the White House, CIA and Justice Department. With the ruins of the World Trade Center still smoking, there was little discussion about whether U.S. citizens should have more protection, the officials recalled. The feeling was that the government needed--and had-- broad authority to find and kill terrorists who were trying to strike the United States.
The CIA first faced the issue in November 2002, when it launched a Predator drone attack in Yemen. An American terror suspect who had fled there, Kamal derwish, was killed by Hellfire missiles launched on his caravan.
The Bush administration said Derwish wasn't the target. The attack was intended for Yemeni al-Qaida leader Abu Ali al-Harithi. But officials said even then that, if it ever came to it, they had the authority to kill an American.
''I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here.There are authorities that the president can give to officials,'' Condoleeza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said. ''He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority.'' Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: I was wondering how you could have responded the way you did after I posted Appuzzo's article. Somehow the rest of it wasn't highlighted when I posted. So here you go. This is where Apuzzo's article unravels.
Correction: You did not post it all.
The fact of the matter is, your article is unmistakably saying that al-Awlaki's killing marks a shift in government policy, hence the title:
Obama navigating uncharted territory
With that, I'll dissect the latest article you posted piece by piece where necessary, starting with this:
Before al-Awlaki, no American had been on the list.
But the legal process that led to his death was set in motion a decade ago. On September 17, 2001, President George Bush signed a presidential order authorizing the CIA to hunt down terrorists worldwide. The authority was rooted in his power as commander in chief, leading a nation at war with al-Qaida.
One: This is not a legal process, because it was not upheld through the judicial system or through the conventional avenue towards law-making. This is one individual, the president, bypassing those avenues and using totalitarianism to enforce its goal.
Two: al-Qaeda is not a government, nor does it have political boundaries whereby the laws of which it pays allegiance. Therefore, there are legal ramifications for hunting and killing members of this organization, as it would require respecting the sovereignty of nations where these individuals may be.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The order made no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens. If they posed a ''continuing and imminent threat'' to the United States, they were eligible to be killed, former intelligence officials said.
Exactly. The order Bush signed makes no specific case for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process.
Two: Just about anything can be described as posing "continuing and imminent threat" to the U.S. government, if it so chooses.
quote: The order was reviewed by top lawyers at the White House, CIA and Justice Department. With the ruins of the World Trade Center still smoking, there was little discussion about whether U.S. citizens should have more protection, the officials recalled. The feeling was that the government needed--and had-- broad authority to find and kill terrorists who were trying to strike the United States.
Confirming my point, that there was no legal oversight or even discussion specifically about assassinating U.S. citizens.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The CIA first faced the issue in November 2002, when it launched a Predator drone attack in Yemen. An American terror suspect who had fled there, Kamal derwish, was killed by Hellfire missiles launched on his caravan.
Looks like Awlaki was not the only U.S. citizen on the government's terror watch list after all (I can't imagine any individual being a terror suspect without being on that list), which begs the question of what "list", the following is referring to:
Before al-Awlaki, no American had been on the list.
The remaining passages of the article might clue in on this.
quote: The Bush administration said Derwish wasn't the target.
Ahah! There it is. Derwish "wasn't the target", was the justification given to bypass the legal ramifications of his killing.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The Bush administration said Derwish wasn't the target. The attack was intended for Yemeni al-Qaida leader Abu Ali al-Harithi. But officials said even then that, if it ever came to it, they had the authority to kill an American.
Killing of U.S. citizen, Derwish, was justified on the grounds that he was caught up in an effort to kill a non-citizen, Abu Ali al-Harithi.
The professed "authority to kill an American, if it ever came to it" is not a legal or democratic one.
quote: ''I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials,'' Condoleeza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said. ''He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority.''
One: I wonder what constitutional authority, being described above, says that the U.S. government can assassinate U.S. citizens without trial?
Two: All in all, the article doesn't point out wherein, it is specifically made a policy by the Bush administration, to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process. Yes, a U.S. citizen was killed by the administration's actions, but they circumvented the legal ramifications of it, by saying that the citizen was not the target of the assassination.
The policy to outright target a citizen for assassination without legal proceeding therefore made its debut under the Obama administration.
The article therefore was not contradicting itself, as you protest, when it said that this was the first time that a U.S. citizen was actively targeted and specifically assassinated with the government's authorization:
It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so.
Your article only reinforces the idea that this is an unprecedented undertaking. Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer:
''When you say that one of two or more antagonists or so-called enemies of the U.S. government deserves to be assassinated but not the other(s), that is not reflective of an objective consideration.''
Do you suppose you can locate information that says Walker was a terrorist and not a combatant for the Taliban?
''When you say that democratic principles towards a single citizen should be dropped, because you don't like them or because of mere government accusations, that is not indicative of objective thinking.''
Refer to the rest of the article I just posted to give you more pause for reflection on what some governments are capable of--and make it stick. You should be remindeed we are talking about a government not me. If Awlaki had stayed home and mouthed off about the U.S. he would still be alive to continue his free speech. But he left the States to articulate--and carry out-- his views more violently according to news sources. That got him reduced back to a carbon state.
''It's also strange that you take a position on the treatment of Walker without knowing anything about him.''
Groan... I already told you what I know of Walker and that is he was a combatant for the Taliban according to the newspaper accounts at the time. Since he was captured along with other Taliban fighters I can only surmise he was a combatant, again, according to the news reports. I don't know if anyone says he killed Americans. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. Since this is an unknown about Walker I am still puzzled by your dogged but counter productive insistence that he can be likened to Awlaki.
''The idea that Walker has been silent ('silenced' - my paraphrase) came from you. Why even mention it, if you didn't think he was silenced? Would he have been that way today, if the government had not imprisoned him?''
It would help you if you can understand exactly what it means by paraphrase. You can't see the difference in ''has been silent'' and your ''silenced,'' a word that connotes a factual position? A position that hasn't even been brought up by me other than to say I have no way of knowing if he 'has been silenced' or not. Your task is to understand the difference between ''has been silent'' and ''been silenced.''
At this point you bring to mind a very young student trying to find his/her way throughout an argument.
''The government's supposed beef against Awlaki, is that he is conspiring to "kill Americans". When Walker shoots at U.S. forces, his intention then is to "kill Americans". It's odd that you find a distinction to the ends of means.'
What's odd Explorer is you are still suffocating your argument. Leave... John Walker Lindh.. out... of... the... debate. It isn't useful to you.
''Additionally, you claim that local terrorists like McVeigh or the Columbine shooters, who've actually killed more Americans on American soil than anything Awlaki has been able to pull off, don't deserve the treatment Awlaki had received -- assassination without due process.''
Really! Are you talking to me or someone else and forgot it?
McVeigh was captured and sentenced to die. He did eventually with due process sitting on his shoulders. McVeigh didn't voice his intentions to bomb the building in Oklahoma: he got way with it because he didn't tell the proper author ities what his actions were going to be. Your Columbine malcontents killed themselves. They had no use for due process, evidently.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: The Explorer:
''When you say that one of two or more antagonists or so-called enemies of the U.S. government deserves to be assassinated but not the other(s), that is not reflective of an objective consideration.''
Do you suppose you can locate information that says Walker was a terrorist and not a combatant for the Taliban?
Do you suppose you can locate information in what you are replying, that makes issue of whether Walker is "considered" a "terrorist" or a "combatant"?
quote: Refer to the rest of the article I just posted to give you more pause for reflection on what some governments are capable of--and make it stick. You should be remindeed we are talking about a government not me. If Awlaki had stayed home and mouthed off about the U.S. he would still be alive to continue his free speech. But he left the States to articulate--and carry out-- his views more violently according to news sources. That got him reduced back to a carbon state.
I've already replied to your article where necessary. Perhaps, this presents an opportunity for you to carefully re-read your article as well.
You are looking to be now distancing yourself from ideas that you were moments ago defending, by now just crediting them to the government.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
From your latest postings it's clear you are hung up on what governments shouldn't do, but do. The article posted said Bush started this business. You are frightful because Obama actually *made* a hit list for everyone to see; Bush didn't but it was understood what his intentions were. It didn't matter what wasn't *specifically* discussed about targeting U.S citizens oversea. The article goes on to say it included Americans. You see the article one way, I see it the other.
And just as I told you, but you keep forgetting, they can make it legal to suit purposes.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
''It's also strange that you take a position on the treatment of Walker without knowing anything about him.''
Groan... I already told you what I know of Walker and that is he was a combatant for the Taliban according to the newspaper accounts at the time.
Last I checked, you expressed frustrations with raising Walker, because you say he is an unknown to you.
quote: Since he was captured along with other Taliban fighters I can only surmise he was a combatant, again, according to the news reports. I don't know if anyone says he killed Americans. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. Since this is an unknown about Walker I am still puzzled by your dogged but counter productive insistence that he can be likened to Awlaki.
When you say (like a broken record) Walker was simply a "combatant", you are overlooking a key issue here: He was fighting against U.S. forces. What does that make him: a friend or foe of the U.S. government?
Your puzzlement defies logic, as it was revealed to you on more than one occasion that it is not the question of "likening" Walker to Awlaki. Rather, it is a question of treatment of U.S. citizens who are accused of crime against the U.S. interests outside U.S. borders, and are considered "enemy" of the U.S. government.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
It would help you if you can understand exactly what it means by paraphrase. You can't see the difference in ''has been silent'' and your ''silenced,'' a word that connotes a factual position? A position that hasn't even been brought up by me other than to say I have no way of knowing if he 'has been silenced' or not. Your task is to understand the difference between ''has been silent'' and ''been silenced.''
Since you figure that I didn't understand you, then help me understand. I ask again: Would Walker be that way (i.e. being silent) today, had he not been imprisoned by the U.S. government?
quote:
''The government's supposed beef against Awlaki, is that he is conspiring to "kill Americans". When Walker shoots at U.S. forces, his intention then is to "kill Americans". It's odd that you find a distinction to the ends of means.'
What's odd Explorer is you are still suffocating your argument. Leave... John Walker Lindh.. out... of... the... debate. It isn't useful to you.
This non-interactive comment serves as a convenience to cop-out.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
''Additionally, you claim that local terrorists like McVeigh or the Columbine shooters, who've actually killed more Americans on American soil than anything Awlaki has been able to pull off, don't deserve the treatment Awlaki had received -- assassination without due process.''
Really! Are you talking to me or someone else and forgot it?
I'm guessing from this non-responsiveness, that you are at a loss of words in defending your position as described in the highlighted above.
quote: McVeigh was captured and sentenced to die. He did eventually with due process sitting on his shoulders. McVeigh didn't voice his intentions to bomb the building in Oklahoma: he got way with it because he didn't tell the proper author ities what his actions were going to be. Your Columbine malcontents killed themselves. They had no use for due process, evidently.
McVeigh could have simply been executed directly for his actions, without due process, but he wasn't. Why?
The raising of the Columbine shooters, is to draw attention to the issue that citizens within U.S. borders have be known to kill more Americans on U.S. soil itself than Awlaki can only imagine pulling off; yet, you defend the idea that those who actually have killed many U.S. citizens on the U.S. soil should be given due process, but not a citizen simply "accused" of crime from outside U.S. borders.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: From your latest postings it's clear you are hung up on what governments shouldn't do, but do.
The OP makes it obvious that I was hung up on what governments "shouldn't do, but do" from the onset. It wasn't the subject of a change of mind down the road.
quote: The article posted said Bush started this business. You are frightful because Obama actually *made* a hit list for everyone to see; Bush didn't but it was understood what his intentions were.
Correction: The article says that Bush signed an order to assassinate "terrorists". The order does not address or make a case for specifically assassinating U.S. citizens without trial.
Correction #2: The U.S. citizen killed under the Bush administration was excused, because the government said he wasn't on the hit list. Your claim that Bush had a hit list of U.S. citizens that he didn't share, but was understood nonetheless, remains to be proven. Additionally, if true, it would only weaken your case further that the idea of assassinating U.S. citizens without trial as an open government policy has its precedence in the Bush administration.
If I'm frightful about Obama assassinating citizens without trial, then you should too, if you care about your civil rights as a citizen.
quote: It didn't matter what wasn't *specifically* discussed about targeting U.S citizens oversea. The article goes on to say it included Americans. You see the article one way, I see it the other.
And just as I told you, but you keep forgetting, they can make it legal to suit purposes.
You are misinformed. Your article does not say that the order specifically includes "U.S. citizens". The order doesn't even address U.S. citizens.
It's true that I see the article one way, and you, another, but the difference is that I've actually read your article. Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Since you figure that I didn't understand you, then help me understand. I ask again: Would Walker be that way (i.e. being silent) today, had he not been imprisoned by the U.S. government?''
I do recall telling you I lost track of Walker. This means I didn't follow his path after his capture. I do know he was taken to one of the ships offshore someplace and given medical treatment. That's it for me. I didn't value him as a source of wonderment or entertainment after he was out of the news. Any information you have at your disposal can only help you; particularly a part where it states Walker was a terrorist, as you have been saying, or at least suggesting, to attempt to prove your point about Awlaki who is considered a terrorist by the authorities.
''McVeigh could have simply been executed directly for his actions, without due process, but he wasn't. Why?
And why would you think that what McVeigh did in this country could make the authorities bypass due process? Because of the enormity of the crime? The days of ''legal'' lynchings are over and done with. Why do you bring up this distraction. it doesn't help you in the least. Again, no one knew that McVeigh was a terrorist until after the fact according to what I've read.
If McVeigh was a *known* terrorist and skipped the country and carried out his mayhem overseas against Americans how long do you think it would take before he would be shaking hands with Awlaki in the hereafter? Surely you don't believe he would be kidnapped and brought back to the States and given due process do you? Not after you said you read the same article I did.
''Correction: The article says that Bush signed an order to assassinate "terrorists". The order does not address or make a case for specifically assassinating U.S. citizens without trial.
The only thing I can do for you now,at this point Explorer, is invite you to read and reread what the following article has to say --in its entirety. Don't speed read anymore. That article has sufficient understanding in it; but only if you stop letting your weak attempts at 'correction' mislead you yet again.
But the legal process that led to his death was set in motion a decade ago. On September 17, 2001, President George Bush signed a presidential order authorizing the CIA to hunt down terrorists worldwide. The authority was rooted in his power as commander in chief, leading a nation at war with al-Qaida.
The order made no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens. If they posed a ''continuing and imminent threat'' to the United States, they were eligible to be killed, former intelligence officials said.
Can you explain what that particular piece directly above is driving at? Hint: they are talking about killing U.S. citizens and foreigners Explorer. further...
The order was reviewed by top lawyers at the White House, CIA and Justice Department. With the ruins of the World Trade Center still smoking, there was little discussion about whether U.S. citizens should have more protection, the officials recalled. [Does Awlaki ring a bell Explorer?] The feeling was that the government needed--and had-- broad authority to find and kill terrorists who were trying to strike the United States.
The CIA first faced the issue in November 2002, when it launched a Predator drone attack in Yemen. An American terror suspect who had fled there, Kamal derwish, was killed by Hellfire missiles launched on his caravan.
The Bush administration said Derwish wasn't the target. The attack was intended for Yemeni al-Qaida leader Abu Ali al-Harithi.But officials said even then that, if it ever came to it, they had the authority to kill an American.
Explorer... you do realize they are talking about November 2002 don't you--and George Bush and company, not Obama in October 2011.
''Correction #2: The U.S. citizen killed under the Bush administration was excused, because the government said he wasn't on the hit list. Your claim that Bush had a hit list of U.S. citizens that he didn't share, but was understood nonetheless, remains to be proven. Additionally, if true, it would only weaken your case further that the idea of assassinating U.S. citizens without trial as an open government policy has its precedence in the Bush administration.''
Would you mind reposting where I said I made a *claim* Bush had a hit list of U.s. citizens but didn't share. The 'understood'' aspect is fine.
Finally, you should recall by now targetting people on a terrorist list has its precedence with the Bush administration. The article tells you that.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
I do recall telling you I lost track of Walker. This means I didn't follow his path after his capture. I do know he was taken to one of the ships offshore someplace and given medical treatment. That's it for me. I didn't value him as a source of wonderment or entertainment after he was out of the news. Any information you have at your disposal can only help you; particularly a part where it states Walker was a terrorist, as you have been saying, or at least suggesting, to attempt to prove your point about Awlaki who is considered a terrorist by the authorities.
It is very weird of you to say that Walker has been silent, while proclaiming to have no idea of his circumstance.
quote: And why would you think that what McVeigh did in this country could make the authorities bypass due process?
LOL, you've lost track of the topic already. The assassination of U.S. citizens without due process by the government. What else would make me think of that?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Because of the enormity of the crime? The days of ''legal'' lynchings are over and done with. Why do you bring up this distraction. it doesn't help you in the least.
^This post is a distraction. If the "enormity" of allegations against Awlaki were not enough to stop the government from bypassing due process, what makes you assume the same couldn't have been afforded to McVeigh?
quote: Again, no one knew that McVeigh was a terrorist until after the fact according to what I've read.
That does not prevent the government from bypassing due process, and going straight to execution, if it so chooses, as it had done in Awlaki's case. LOL
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
If McVeigh was a *known* terrorist and skipped the country and carried out his mayhem overseas against Americans how long do you think it would take before he would be shaking hands with Awlaki in the hereafter? Surely you don't believe he would be kidnapped and brought back to the States and given due process do you? Not after you said you read the same article I did.
This comment suffers from three things:
One - You cannot ascertain whether McVeigh would be assassinated, were he overseas. Walker certainly was not.
Two - You have no proof that Awlaki has caused mayhem against Americans on U.S. soil overseas.
Three - Assuming that a government prepared to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas without due process, will and could not do the same on U.S. soil.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The only thing I can do for you now,at this point Explorer, is invite you to read and reread what the following article has to say --in its entirety. Don't speed read anymore. That article has sufficient understanding in it; but only if you stop letting your weak attempts at 'correction' mislead you yet again.
Here is what you can do for me, instead of non-interactive posts like the above; tell me why the following is wrong about your article:
All in all, the article doesn't point out wherein, it is specifically made a policy by the Bush administration, to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process. Yes, a U.S. citizen was killed by the administration's actions, but they circumvented the legal ramifications of it, by saying that the citizen was not the target of the assassination.
The policy to outright target a citizen for assassination without legal proceeding therefore made its debut under the Obama administration.
The article therefore was not contradicting itself, as you protest, when it said that this was the first time that a U.S. citizen was actively targeted and specifically assassinated with the government's authorization:
It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so.
Your article only reinforces the idea that this is an unprecedented undertaking.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The order made no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens. If they posed a ''continuing and imminent threat'' to the United States, they were eligible to be killed, former intelligence officials said.
Can you explain what that particular piece directly above is driving at?
I don't have to. I already did above, but you took cover by ignoring it.
quote: further...
The order was reviewed by top lawyers at the White House, CIA and Justice Department. With the ruins of the World Trade Center still smoking, there was little discussion about whether U.S. citizens should have more protection, the officials recalled. [Does Awlaki ring a bell Explorer?] The feeling was that the government needed--and had-- broad authority to find and kill terrorists who were trying to strike the United States.
...
Explorer... you do realize they are talking about November 2002 don't you--and George Bush and company, not Obama in October 2011.
Again, dealt with days ago, when you decided to take cover and go M.I.A. on me.
Advice - See posts above.
quote: Would you mind reposting where I said I made a *claim* Bush had a hit list of U.s. citizens but didn't share. The 'understood'' aspect is fine.
Forgetful already? You are aging, aren't you. Here:
The article posted said Bush started this business. You are frightful because Obama actually *made* a hit list for everyone to see; Bush didn't but it was understood what his intentions were. - Grums
quote: Finally, you should recall by now targetting people on a terrorist list has its precedence with the Bush administration. The article tells you that.
Yes, "terrorists", not "assassinating U.S. citizens" without due process. I told you this two days ago, and you went M.I.A.
The article tells me this, and I understand it:
It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so.
Now, it is your turn to try and understand it. Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer what you have to do now to understand how you unwound yourelf past the point of no return is to look up Abbott and Costello's Who's on First to get an accurate assessment of yourself. Be sure to place a mirror in your hand and look in it to see how this assessment fits you to a ''T.''
P.S. I'm willing to bet it'll pop up on youtube in a hurry because it knows you want to see it.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
So Grums, this is your way of throwing in the towel -- emotional attacks?!
You could have saved yourself all the hassle and done it sooner. Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''If the "enormity" of allegations against Awlaki were not enough to stop the government from bypassing due process, what makes you assume the same couldn't have been afforded to McVeigh?''[/b
Put your wine bottle back on the shelf Explorer and make some sense.I don't have any idea what you're trying to say with that.
Okay, let's start over just a teeny bit. McVeigh was captured after the act and *given due process.* Repeat, McVeigh was captured after the act and *given due process.* Are you in agreement with yourself that McVeigh *was* given due process? It was already an established fact that due process was denied Awlaki. Give that the rest it needs.
I said, redundantly:
''Again, no one knew that McVeigh was a terrorist until after the fact according to what I've read.''
You followed with this:
[b]''That does not prevent the government from bypassing due process, and going straight to execution, if it so chooses, as it had done in Awlaki's case. LOL''
Will you stop agreeing me!
Again, Awlaki made the case for his own destruction. He evidently picked on the wrong folks who decided to create a legal precedent, a precedent which started with Bush, not Obama. You are aware of this and atually read it for yourself but mysteriously refuse to believe what you did read. And here you are still arguing whether due process was bypassed... whether this government can bypass due process... whether McVeigh would have gotten due process and not Awlaki if other circumstances had prevailed. Keep it up my man you're doing just fine. Then again you just stated the government can, if it chooses, bypass due process. Since you admitted to this, and it was clear from the outset, why are you still confounded by all this?
''This comment suffers from three things'':
''One - You cannot ascertain whether McVeigh would be assassinated, were he overseas. Walker certainly was not.''
If McVeigh had been an Awlaki type all along and skipped the country to an ''Arab/Muslim land,'' then carried on (there) in a manner such that authorities deemed it necessary to put him on the list, then yes, I'm certain, given the present state of contentiousness, he would have been vaporized like Awlaki. Note I said 'certain.' That isn't a fact. You can't prove a fact of this nature until it actually happens. Note the insertion of 'Muslim land.'
''Two - You have no proof that Awlaki has caused mayhem against Americans on U.S. soil overseas.
Agreed, I have no personal proof Awlaki did anything. The U.S. government is your antagonist. Those are the guys you need to pry that information from. Their proof suits them. It got Awlaki killed resulting from that information, as a U.S citizen, without due process.
The below was on the same page as the other article I posted a day or so ago. I didn't post it then because I thought you would do your homework without my assistance.
Activity in Yemen
2004 Became a lecturer at al-Iman University in Yemen; listed as a terrorist by the U.S., U.N.: School's students include John Walker Lindh, the ''American Taliban'' [I thought you told me Walker was a terrorist; but... he may be, you just don't know it yet.]
2006 Imprisoned for 18 months, reportedly on charges relating to a plot to kill a U.S. Military Attache
2009 Linked to the failed 2009 Christmas Day bombing and foiled mail bombs sent to Chicago synagogues; said to have inspired the attack at Fort Hood, Texas, that killed 13 people.
On the very last paragraph, right after the semi colon, I can dismiss that for you right up front: Awlaki didn't 'inspire' Hassan to kill anyone--he did it himself.
''Three - Assuming that a government prepared to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas without due process, will and could not do the same on U.S. soil.''
Your post is fragmented somewhat. Are you saying the government will or won't won't assassinate on it's own soil? If you mean they won't I'm sure it would be because of political restraints; even some of them will have scruples about assassination at home. This will be some of that upholding moral principles you talk about but can't understand why it doesn't work simply because you say it should. Don't make me call you naive. Well I see I just did.
''Here is what you can do for me, instead of non-interactive posts like the above; tell me why the following is wrong about your article:
All in all, the article doesn't point out wherein, it is specifically made a policy by the Bush administration, to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process. Yes, a U.S. citizen was killed by the administration's actions, but they circumvented the legal ramifications of it, by saying that the citizen was not the target of the assassination.''
A few things here. Why wouldn't due process be bypassed when legal precedent *had* to be established initially to suit those who are in the droning business? Surely you don't think these guys didn't know about due process do you. And don't you think Mr. Obama knew about Bush's precedent? Let me point out something to you. If Obama didn't have legal precedent do you really think his administration would have let the media know about his actions concerning Awlaki. Obama has enough on his hands with the Mexican gun thing.
And you're pretty smug in your assertion believing Bush made a mistake in targeting Derwish aren't you? That's priceless Explorer.
Yet you will be right in saying I can't prove you're wrong in you taking Bush at his ''truthiness.''
''The policy to outright target a citizen for assassination without legal proceeding therefore made its debut under the Obama administration.'' No Explorer. The issue here is your ignoring of the legal precedent set by Bush and company in 2002. Obama up front ''admitted he targeted Awlaki'' and had the legal precedent in mind when he stated what he was goin go to do.
''It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so.''
One political analyst who is straddling the fence on this says Mr.Obama probably should have left this to the CIA. To me that's like playing in mud and washing only one hand. Is the analyst saying no one controls the CIA. Doesn't the president appoint individuals as head of that outfit.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Okay, let's start over just a teeny bit. McVeigh was captured after the act and *given due process.* Repeat, McVeigh was captured after the act and *given due process.* Are you in agreement with yourself that McVeigh *was* given due process? It was already an established fact that due process was denied Awlaki. Give that the rest it needs.
Indeed, McVeigh was captured after "the act", yet given some semblance of due process. Awlaki was straight-up assassinated merely on government accusations, not an actual "the act".
quote:
create a legal precedent, a precedent which started with Bush, not Obama. You are aware of this and atually read it for yourself but mysteriously refuse to believe what you did read.
Now, you've decided that straight-up lying to yourself will convince you that you are "winning" and make you feel better. You know that your own article punks you on this very issue. LOL
If you read your article, my refusal to buy into your "Bush be the first president to openly and actively assassinate a U.S. citizen without due process" won't be a mystery to you. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Then again you just stated the government can, if it chooses, bypass due process. Since you admitted to this, and it was clear from the outset, why are you still confounded by all this?
Correction: You are confounded by the prospect of the U.S. government's bypassing due process for any citizen, if it saw fit. I was trying to bring you up to speed...but you are still way way back.
You've got a clunker of a memory.
quote: ''This comment suffers from three things'':
''One - You cannot ascertain whether McVeigh would be assassinated, were he overseas. Walker certainly was not.''
If McVeigh had been an Awlaki type all along and skipped the country to an ''Arab/Muslim land,'' then carried on (there) in a manner such that authorities deemed it necessary to put him on the list, then yes, I'm certain, given the present state of contentiousness, he would have been vaporized like Awlaki. Note I said 'certain.' That isn't a fact. You can't prove a fact of this nature until it actually happens. Note the insertion of 'Muslim land.'
One: What is an "Awlaki type"? "terrorist"?
Two: Of course, NOW, you'll claim that you are "certain" that McVeigh could be assassinated, precisely because Obama has set the precedence for openly assassinating U.S. citizens. You keep hurting your case and not knowing it. LOL
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
''Two - You have no proof that Awlaki has caused mayhem against Americans on U.S. soil overseas.
Agreed, I have no personal proof Awlaki did anything.
Case closed! Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The below was on the same page as the other article I posted a day or so ago. I didn't post it then because I thought you would do your homework without my assistance.
Activity in Yemen
2004 Became a lecturer at al-Iman University in Yemen; listed as a terrorist by the U.S., U.N.: School's students include John Walker Lindh, the ''American Taliban'' [I thought you told me Walker was a terrorist; but... he may be, you just don't know it yet.]
Not only that; when I drilled you on whether Walker's fighting against U.S. forces for the Taliban, which Officials have dismissed as "killing terrorists in Afghanistan" every now & then, you went M.I.A.
quote: ''Three - Assuming that a government prepared to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas without due process, will and could not do the same on U.S. soil.''
Your post is fragmented somewhat. Are you saying the government will or won't won't assassinate on it's own soil?
I'm saying your are naively clueless about your own government and underestimate it for what it is capable of doing in its own interests, even if it means trampling on civil rights of its own citizens.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
''Here is what you can do for me, instead of non-interactive posts like the above; tell me why the following is wrong about your article:
All in all, the article doesn't point out wherein, it is specifically made a policy by the Bush administration, to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process. Yes, a U.S. citizen was killed by the administration's actions, but they circumvented the legal ramifications of it, by saying that the citizen was not the target of the assassination.''
A few things here. Why wouldn't due process be bypassed when legal precedent *had* to be established initially to suit those who are in the droning business?
You are overlooking one key issue in the above, by asking your non-interactive question: i.e. Why the Bush administration would even make an excuse about not targeting a U.S. citizen, who happened to be killed in their quest to assassinate a non-U.S. citizen, if he had already set a "legal" precedent for it LOL.
Of course, you've decided it was best to ignore your article's informing you of the fact that the "legality" of assassinating U.S. citizens was given little to no consideration.
quote:Surely you don't think these guys didn't know about due process do you.
If they did, they sure didn't apply to Awlaki, a U.S. citizen. They sure 'n heck don't apply it in Guantanamo bay.
quote:Let me point out something to you. If Obama didn't have legal precedent do you really think his administration would have let the media know about his actions concerning Awlaki. Obama has enough on his hands with the Mexican gun thing.
You're not pointing out anything; you are merely begging me with a question.
But to answer you, it is precisely by letting the media know about his actions concerning Awlaki, that Obama has set a precedence in making the assassination of U.S. citizens, with no consideration to legal proceedings, a public government policy.
quote: And you're pretty smug in your assertion believing Bush made a mistake in targeting Derwish aren't you? That's priceless Explorer.
Correction: Bush didn't make a mistake in targeting Derwish, but he made an excuse for it, precisely because even he wasn't convinced that he was making a "legal precedence" for it, which you are so imaginative about...whatever that means....LOL, a president setting a "legal precedent".
quote:Yet you will be right in saying I can't prove you're wrong in you taking Bush at his ''truthiness.''
Again, one of the few instances you are on cue.
quote: ''The policy to outright target a citizen for assassination without legal proceeding therefore made its debut under the Obama administration.'' No Explorer. The issue here is your ignoring of the legal precedent set by Bush and company in 2002.
Then it must be both your article and me, who are ignoring "the legal precedent set by Bush and company", as your article says:
''It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so.''
Give it up, my friend. Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Awlaki was straight-up assassinated merely on government accusations, not an actual "the act".''
Yet you ignore the allegations I gave you last night that preempted ''the act.'' Have you forgotten George's preemptive program after 9/11? Here it is 10 years later and folks still bitch and moan about something that has spiraled past them in a heartbeat. Here it is 10 years later and no government has been toppled because of drone attacks. A demonstration here and there then poof, the crowd disappears back from whence they came. They don't give a f..k in the long term. And they don't want the attention Awlaki and bin Laden attract. If no missile ever hits Pakistan or Yemen again those governments and the people undoubtedly will say ''I guess there are no more individuals considered terrorists.''
Due process protected McVeigh *in this country* Explorer, after, after, the bombings. Due process in this county killed McVeigh *because * of his specific actions.
I know you can agree to the lack of due process for Awlaki. Since I know you can agree to this then why in the eff are you still talking about it? And just what is it you mean by ''some semblance'' of process for McVeigh? Is there a made up clause in the proceedings that assured McVeigh wouldn't get the full package? By the way, f..k McVeigh and F..k Awlaki too. They both played by the rules and lost. The only difference is one got due process from his killing many people, the other didn't because he wanted to play by his own rules someplace else--and paid dearly beause of allegations against him--allegations the system didn't want entrusted to a court.
The government made the allegations, not me. Those allegations got Awlaki dusted--they got him dusted in Yemen--away from the system in the United States. Why is this still a mystery to you. You're mad at me because I'm telling the truth and you don't see the truth except to say Awlaki was denied due process. Well damn Explorer, he was denied due process. Why do you continue to beat this dead issue. But you are not alone in your grief, there are countless others at the top of the heap that disagree with Awlaki's droning; Ron Paul is vocal against it. Probably equally there are those in government who had the wherewithal to shove due process out the window and set a legal precedent many years ago by Bush and company and then have Obama act on it years later, *and own up to it.* And guess what, those who set the precedent said f..k you guys if you don't like it.
If McVeigh had those accusations against him the government says Awlaki had then who in the hell in the White House, or House of Representatives or the Senate would have assassinated McVeigh--on U.S soil? Why can't you get this through that thick skull of yours.
Everyone reading this can see how far this debate has collapsed into a mound of pure bulls..t from the both of us, way past the initial points. This has gone on long enough.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''Awlaki was straight-up assassinated merely on government accusations, not an actual "the act".''
Yet you ignore the allegations I gave you last night that preempted ''the act.''
You ain't reading buddy. Said "accusations" are the "allegations". Therefore it could not have possibly been ignored. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
If no missile ever hits Pakistan or Yemen again those governments and the people undoubtedly will say ''I guess there are no more individuals considered terrorists.''
Funny. You are even going as far as endorsing the violation of other countries' sovereignty, in defense of your governments' undemocratic actions. Imagine Pakistan shooting missiles into the U.S. on the grounds that they are pursuing enemies of Pakistan.
As matter of fact, that reminds me of recent accusations levied against Iran, about their pursuit of enemies on U.S. soil. Now all of a sudden the U.S. is talking about someone violating its sovereignty and someone violating "international law". Apparently none of these matter, when the U.S. is doing it.
quote: I know you can agree to the lack of due process for Awlaki. Since I know you can agree to this then why in the eff are you still talking about it? And just what is it you mean by ''some semblance'' of process for McVeigh? Is there a made up clause in the proceedings that assured McVeigh wouldn't get the full package?
You are playing dumb; I have to believe you are, because I've already told you that this is about your supposedly defending the upholding of civil rights of citizens *at home*, but that they be stripped off these once they step outside U.S. borders.
What you don't seem to get, is that drawing back of democratic principles abroad is an extension of a bigger plan, which includes drawing back democracy within the country. U.S. citizens ignoring this, supposedly because the most immediate examples made of this trend happen to be people that they want to hate, are doing so to their own peril. It'll come and bite them in the bud.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The government made the allegations, not me.
But you were/are passionately defending them.
quote: Those allegations got Awlaki dusted--they got him dusted in Yemen--away from the system in the United States. Why is this still a mystery to you. You're mad at me because I'm telling the truth and you don't see the truth except to say Awlaki was denied due process.
You are a funny guy. Nothing here is a mystery to me. In fact, I've been trying to bring you up to speed about what your government is capable of, but you are too caught up with "scoring points".
You now even spin this and say that I'm mad at you, because I see a hole in your case, as your own article reinforces. These things should make me jump with joy, if I were trying to "score points". But that's clearly not the case; my intention is to educate you.
quote: And guess what, those who set the precedent said f..k you guys if you don't like it.
And so, you've decided that you might as well like it.
If you can't beat them, then join them.
quote: Why can't you get this through that thick skull of yours.
Emotional grums. And you say that I'm mad. You are the only one here levying emotional attacks to make up for where you fall short intellectually.
quote: Everyone reading this can see how far this debate has collapsed into a mound of pure bulls..t from the both of us, way past the initial points. This has gone on long enough.
Actually, I've been quite calm and collect through all this. You on the other hand, have lost your composure. Now, what does that say about you? Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Funny. You are even going as far as endorsing the violation of other countries' sovereignty, in defense of your governments' undemocratic actions. Imagine Pakistan shooting missiles into the U.S. on the grounds that they are pursuing enemies of Pakistan.''
No endorsement at all. I made the issue the U.S. did it... and they did--for reasons already stated much earlier.''
And the U.S. vis-a-vis Pakistan wouldn't have to imagine anything of the sort. They and the U.S. use each other for personal gain. You know that. I'm sure Yemen can comment too: not the citizens mind you, just the government.
''As matter of fact, that reminds me of recent accusations levied against Iran, about their pursuit of enemies on U.S. soil. Now all of a sudden the U.S. is talking about someone violating its sovereignty and someone violating "international law". Apparently none of these matter, when the U.S. is doing it.''
If you are referring to the Saudi ambassor to the U.S., that would be an enemy to Iran in a political sense; violence could come later. Today's news on CNN interviewed David Ignatius of the Washington post. He said the story at face value sounded bogus. Then he started checking and he claims the charges are well substantiated against Iran. Iran has been digging at Saudi Arabia for quite some; maybe the Saudis do the same; but Iran got caught he says.
Iran probably figured since the U.S. is seemingly a very open society then the chances of pulling it off were greater. They evidently forgot how extensive the system can be. According to the story a couple of days ago the potential assassin squealed; he ''got cold feet.''
Well what say me about it. Nothing. The U.S. foiled the attempt, it's over. No need to escalate anything.
''What you don't seem to get, is that drawing back of democratic principles abroad is an extension of a bigger plan, which includes drawing back democracy within the country. U.S. citizens ignoring this, supposedly because the most immediate examples made of this trend happen to be people that they want to hate, are doing so to their own peril. It'll come and bite them in the bud.''
Do you have extensive comments to make for your ''drawing back democracy?'' I see no evidence of it. The country was established officially 235 years ago. People undoubtedly at that time were complaining about losing democracy in some form or other. I see no evidence that's happened to make me stop in my tracks and stand on a street corner demonstrating. Regarding the ''people they want to hate'' is something that carries a bit more weight. I suggested this very thing a few days ago to you. You didn't comment so I let it go.
People in the late 60s and early 70s were complaining about losing democratic principles. I saw no evidence of this at the time that I can relate to, even today. Has there been government subterfuge since its existence. Sho' nuff. Should those in business and the Wall Street boys, the ones *who wear* the suits and ties, be trusted. No. So other than the ones who wrecked the economy what is this drawing back of democratic principles you refer to that probably the majority of present-day citizens should have pause for concern. I am more concerned about those mentioned who wear business suits than the government depriving me of anything. But, if one digs deeper than usual one may find they pat each other's backs also.Yet that isn't losing a democratic principle. Of course a rebuttal to that may be if the entire country collapses then everything you said about democratic principles may come to pass. Even at that it would only be the length of time it takes to correct the collapse... in my opinion.
On my McVeigh and Awlaki comment:
''And so, you've decided that you might as well like it.
If you can't beat them, then join them.''
No joining at all, but I did tell you the truth.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Do you have extensive comments to make for your ''drawing back democracy?'' I see no evidence of it.
No joke; so, you do have a short memory. Does assassinating a U.S. citizen without due process not ring a bell?
How about attacking demonstrators peacefully making their voices heard, or the eavesdropping of citizens without their knowledge, or ignoring majority call to bring troops back home prompto (that Obama ran on and promised), dropping all private citizen law suits against the President and his cronies, intimidating voters to curtail their voting rights or say, the interjection of the supreme court in a national election, and placing the win to the loser, in contempt of the majority vote,...?
quote: I see no evidence that's happened to make me stop in my tracks and stand on a street corner demonstrating.
Why should you, when you are passionate about defending your government's criminal and undemocratic policies? Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Regarding the ''people they want to hate'' is something that carries a bit more weight. I suggested this very thing a few days ago to you. You didn't comment so I let it go.
Incorrect. I have commented. You chose not to listen.
quote: On my McVeigh and Awlaki comment:
''And so, you've decided that you might as well like it.
If you can't beat them, then join them.''
No joining at all, but I did tell you the truth.
Your own article has laid to waste your disinformation that you have told the truth.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''No joke; so, you do have a short memory. Does assassinating a U.S. citizen without due process not ring a bell?''
Not in this case does it ring a bell; the government demonstrated it for you and also has shown you that Awlaki will be a footnote on someone's blog somewhere down the line; someone not to be remembered. An article from the wire services after we talked a few days ago says Awlaki's case was drawn up narrowly and tailored to fit him--not you, not me, nor anyone else who minds their business and refrains from intimidating the government folks and thereby not drawing unwanted, and specific attention to themselves.
The following makes more sense.
''How about attacking demonstrators peacefully making their voices heard, or the eavesdropping of citizens without their knowledge, or ignoring majority call to bring troops back home prompto (that Obama ran on and promised), dropping all private citizen law suits against the President and his cronies, intimidating voters to curtail their voting rights or say, the interjection of the supreme court in a national election, and placing the win to the loser, in contempt of the majority vote,...?
Attacking demonstrators
Since a few scuffles broke out between demonstrators and police I'm thinking this may have something to do with a recent order to disperse on Wall Street. Assuming an order was given to the peaceful demonstrators on Wall Street to disperse and they didn't, then who would be wrong in this case, the authorities or the demonstrators? All I'm saying here is they haven't been disturbed for several days and now the authorities want them to leave, who is wrong here? I don't see what they're hurting. Yet if they haven't accomplished what their goal is other than demonstrating and those in charge know it, then are the civil folks obligated to let it continue indefinitely?
Why should you be concerned the government will eavesdrop on someone when it's unwarranted? Only those who bring attention to themselves will warrant this action. I use my home phone occasionally and my cell phone rarely. When I do use the cell it's because I want to call my wife and have her remind me what item or two out of many I forgot. Is this some of that unwarranted eavesdropping you're talking about. Is this something any government will be interested in. I am an ordinary citizen. I vote, and go about my daily activities at home, then riding a trail or two on my bicycle, maybe to the book store, then hit the internet digital camera sites, plus others. Do you think the government is really concerned about people like me. Do you think this government actually wants to know and understand why I decide to purchase an SLR (single lens reflex) over a P&S (Point and Shoot) model. I am under no illusion/s that I will be prevented from doing those things tens of million people do on a routine basis that has nothing to with the Constitution and rights. Yet if I had a passport and used it then I am certain this government will know a few things about me and what places I intend to visit. Is this cause for alarm from me that they would know where I plan to visit. Absolutely not. So, in light of those things I mentioned to you and with my unchecked background, I see no reason I should be concerned about anything the govement knows about me while abroad specifically, and home, generally.
Bringing the troops home is more like it. But the total answer isn't there yet. It'll come in due time; hopefully very soon. This is called 'local' and international *politics* in case you forgot it. By the way how does not bringing the troops home impact on rights as a citizen? Are you saying citizens have the right to 'terminate' wars at their request? Wars that are brought about by their 'elected' representatives? Wars that have gone through the proper channels, even if some cosigners are intimidated for future uses? And yes citizens if they protest enough can and will have an impact on their legislators ovr time; witness my generation in Vietnam. And To those who voted for Obama and to their dismay find he didn't and probably couldn't pull the plug on the war machine as quickly as he would like, I can only say to them and you, you're unrealistic in your expectations.
According to the latest printed news this evening it stated Obama says all troops in Iraq will be home by January . No word however if this included all advisors too.
Private lawsuits against Bush and his cronies presumably? Why are you surprised at this. Is this one of those rights that are being taken away? Is there a specific law that states a citizen can do that simply because they are a citizen? If there is then it will be interesting to read the legalities of it and why it was erased(?) from the record that easily if it were *constitutionally bound* as a 'right' instead of an arbitrary grab at legalities originating in one's own whims. You should remind yourself there are Constitutional lawyers who make a living at this ''rights '' business and how it's supposed to be interpreted.
Intimidating the voting bloc
Making everyone have an identification card comes to mind here: of which, one side says ''No!'', it isn't needed. The other says ''why not, they're getting the cards free, so what's the problem.'' Each side denies what the other is saying at times. That's called politics. It's nothing unusual about it.
Frankly speaking I didn't pay too much attention to the Supreme Court Florida decision except to note a state's winning popular vote doesn't necessarily mean it *has* to give it's electoral votes to the popular vote. That is generally accepted that it does, but a denial of a popular vote winner has happened twice although much earlier in time. I don't recall who the participants were and the states involved. And as you know the popular vote is being challenged in some states by redistricting right now by authorities in terms of should the popular vote get all the states' electors. For example in the proposed new system by some states, a popular vote winner could get 2 electors instead of the usual 3.
I can't help you out of your idealism Explorer.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''No joke; so, you do have a short memory. Does assassinating a U.S. citizen without due process not ring a bell?''
Not in this case does it ring a bell; the government demonstrated it for you
I guess I missed it. Where has the government demonstrated to me that due process was applied to Awlaki, as an American citizen?
quote: Why should you be concerned the government will eavesdrop on someone when it's unwarranted?
You could answer your own question with a bit of common sense, but I'll go ahead and waste space with an obvious answer: I'm concerned when my privacy is being violated without my permission, knowledge or cause...and any level-headed U.S. citizen who cherishes his/her civil liberties, will feel the same way. I'm concerned when businesses, who claim to guard the privacy of their repeat customers, assist the government to spy on their own customers behind their backs.
quote: Only those who bring attention to themselves will warrant this action.
This is the problem with you. You seem to think that only a select few are a target of government spying and invasion of privacy, when it includes any and every private citizen, including you. If this doesn't bother you, then you should have no problem living in countries that you'd openly call "totalitarian" or "dictatorships" either.
In those countries, despotic governments do something else that you are in favor: squashing freedom of speech, including the right to peacefully protest.
quote:By the way how does not bringing the troops home impact on rights as a citizen?
In a true democracy, when the person elect was put into office by a *majority vote* because of a promise, this is what the person elect does. Reneging on a promise and snubbing the majority who put one's behind into office is the anti-thesis of democracy. In other words, it's despotic and totalitarian.
quote: Private lawsuits against Bush and his cronies presumably? Why are you surprised at this.
It seems that you know don't the difference between expressing surprise and giving you an example of draw-back of civil liberty as a response to your own inquiry.
quote:Is this one of those rights that are being taken away?
Yes. Citizens are not generally denied the right to sue or press charges against parties responsible for extra-judiciously killing their loved ones by courts. When this is done, a court is taking away that civil liberty and saying government officials are above the supposed law of the land.
quote: I can't help you out of your idealism Explorer.
My idealism is the upholding of democracy and civil liberties. What's your's, since it's obviously not democracy?
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Originally posted by The Explorer:
''No joke; so, you do have a short memory. Does assassinating a U.S. citizen without due process not ring a bell?''
I responded with:
Not in this case does it ring a bell; the government demonstrated it for you''
...then Explorer...
I guess I missed it. Where has the government demonstrated to me that due process was applied to Awlaki, as an American citizen?''
You didn't miss anything that's why I said ''not in this case...'' Is there another answer you are seeking on this? I have no intention of repeating stale material.
''I'm concerned when my privacy is being violated without my permission, knowledge or cause...and any level-headed U.S. citizen who cherishes his/her civil liberties, will feel the same way. I'm concerned when businesses, who claim to guard the privacy of their repeat customers, assist the government to spy on their own customers behind their backs.''
All this is happening to you as we speak? Looks to me like you are being singled out. Does it have anything to do with something I very recently mentioned above? Maybe I shouldn't talk to you anymore? Well you did say a few months back in response to another posters criticism about someone else: ''on the internet you can be who you want to be. Is this getting you scrutinized you think?
''This is the problem with you. You seem to think that only a select few are a target of government spying and invasion of privacy, when it includes any and every private citizen, including you.''
No, '' Only those who bring attention to themselves will warrant this action''.
I've had a credit card since 1972. the magnetic stripe on the back has always had a couple extra invisible stripes to gather further information about your person. What is it you think authorities don't know about me, and you, especially in this electronic age of today.
Hmmm, you might want to take that sign off your back.
''If this doesn't bother you, then you should have no problem living in countries that you'd openly call "totalitarian" or "dictatorships" either.
''In those countries, despotic governments do something else that you are in favor: squashing freedom of speech, including the right to peacefully protest.''
False application of motives. You're faltering considerably Explorer.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
You didn't miss anything that's why I said ''not in this case...'' Is there another answer you are seeking on this? I have no intention of repeating stale material.
Neither do I, which is why I questioned if you already forgot about the government drawing back democracy, when it assassinated a U.S. citizen without due process, upon your odd claim that you saw no evidence of such.
quote: ''I'm concerned when my privacy is being violated without my permission, knowledge or cause...and any level-headed U.S. citizen who cherishes his/her civil liberties, will feel the same way. I'm concerned when businesses, who claim to guard the privacy of their repeat customers, assist the government to spy on their own customers behind their backs.''
All this is happening to you as we speak? Looks to me like you are being singled out.
It could just as well include myself, since the government is doing it behind peoples' backs. I'm realistic enough to realize that I'm not extraordinary in any way, that the government would exempt me from this undemocratic program of its, designed to censor the public at large.
quote: ''This is the problem with you. You seem to think that only a select few are a target of government spying and invasion of privacy, when it includes any and every private citizen, including you.''
No, '' Only those who bring attention to themselves will warrant this action''.
Exactly, my point. Thanks for repeating yourself.
quote: What is it you think authorities don't know about me, and you, especially in this electronic age of today.
The government doesn't have to know every freaking thing I do on the internet, or I say on my phone in my own privacy.
quote: False application of motives. You're faltering considerably Explorer.
Just being frank. Your general anti-democratic stance suggests that you ought to feel at home under any despotic regime. How does Syria sound?
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Just being frank. Your general anti-democratic stance suggests that you ought to feel at home under any despotic regime. How does Syria sound?
No thanks I'll take my chances here in the U.S.A. with the KKK and the Michigan Militia and the nazi party and the skinheads...
Posted by jonathan88 (Member # 19613) on :
Mr. Walker has a father who is a well known lawyer. that is the difference. It makes a difference in how one may be treated
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^I doubt that had much to do with it. IMO, the killings of citizens and non-citizens abroad happens to demonstrate a marked shift in U.S. policy.
The seeds may have been sown under the Bush administration, but the fruits appeared under Obama.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)