I could be executed tomorrow. Please help.

[MannyGoldstein]

And you can be executed too, now that the Constitution's due process workings have been defecated upon by the administrations of Clinton, Bush, and Obama respectively. It's now totally cool to kidnap, imprison, torture, and execute people, even US citizens, with zero judicial involvement. Macing peaceful protesters and smashing their heads into cars and pavement seems like it's become good sport too.

But don't worry, it won't happen to you, right?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Good luck to us all.

[elleng]

1. They're coming for TERRORISTS, as they must.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. And who decides who is a terrorist?

By law, the courts decide. When we abandon the law, we abandon civilization.

[DCBob]

23. That's easy.. they wear "I 'heart' AQ" t-shirts.

[Tesha]

144. That's today. Tomorrow, different tee-shirts might get you "qualified" (or permanently-disqualified

as the case may be).

Tesha

[kickysnana]

42. +1

[dixiegrrrrl]

52. Actually, #2 seems to be the person always in the cross hairs.

:evilgrin:

[treestar]

53. He could have turned himself in to the courts

You fail to do that when under warrant and then try to run when the cops come to serve the warrant on you - you can be killed without trial.

[TheKentuckian]

89. There are no charges to surrender for and no running under warrant is not a capital offense.

You can be killed resisting arrest but you are not subject to death for failure to appear.

[Major Hogwash]

107. That's true, since he was charged in Yemen and this was a joint operation.

He could have had his day in court, but he chose to flee.
Just like Bonnie and Clyde.

[MNBrewer]

116. If he was charged in Yemen, then Yemeni law applies

We have no business enforcing it. The charge in Yemen, however, was nothing more than a political/diplomatic fig leaf.

[Major Hogwash]

123. And justice was carried out in the joint operation by Yemen and the United States.

And that's all there is to it.

[MNBrewer]

127. Justice?

Was he tried in absentia? TO be put to death by drone strike?

[Major Hogwash]

133. Yes, justice.

That's all there is to it.

[MNBrewer]

136. Vengeance

[stockholmer]

186. bullshit, it was an extra-judicial assassination of an American citizen, without due process

You need to go get gleeful with neo-cons, this is obviously the wrong venue for you.
:thumbsdown:

[COLGATE4]

194. + another 1000

[COLGATE4]

193. Truly major hogwash

[lumberjack_jeff]

235. Justice is doled out by courts.

And THAT's all there is to it.

[Fearless]

171. +1000

[Hutzpa]

337. The court of Law that execute innocent men?

whoopee.

I suppose you are comfortable with that because they have been through the court of Law.

[xocet]

91. Who says that you are not a terrrorist? Haven't you been on a subversive website for years?

Haven't you not openly advocated against the policies of the President of the United States? Have you not been politically active against that which is in the best interest of the USA? Are you sure that you are not a terrorist? Why should I believe you? Why?

[elleng]

130. Anyone who knows me. No. No. No. Yes. Because of my actions, that's why.

[xocet]

163. That is not what the official files say. One cannot argue with them. n/t

[elleng]

166. One can and DOES argue with them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

237. Nope, sorry. Those records are sealed.

And those who know you can't get a day in court.

You wouldn't be on the government's list without good reason, and I'm sure those good reasons are secret for a good reason.

[golfguru]

168. No, that is not terrorism!

Unless he has plans to explode innocent civilians with a bomb -or- fly into tall buildings to kill innocent civilians, he is off the terrorist list.

There is a huge difference between a brutal criminal or a
person who wants to engage in political unrest so long it
does not involve indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians.

[yurbud]

174. so the drones will be hitting Goldman Sachs next?

[DFab420]

3. Stupid. Seriously. He was a member of a terrorist organization.

Un rec

this is stupid even for you Manny.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. What crimes was he indicted for?

Can you name them?

[ProSense]

8. Are you a member of a terrorist organization?

Which one?

[MannyGoldstein]

10. So you refuse to answer a very basic question?

I guess it's a very, very uncomfortable question.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. ** CRICKETS **

[ProSense]

69. Um

"** CRICKETS **"

...It's much more fun watching the straw men being built.

I mean, this outrage is all about American Exceptionalism: He's not a terrorist, he's an American. All the other terrorists being killed every day don't warrant a thread about their lack of due process.

What else would inspire you to identify with a terrorist: He's an American!

Remember how upset everyone was when people were making fun of the number of times the same terrorists were being killed by Bush?

I didn't shed a tear for the terrorists Bush killed, and I'm not about to start.

This is bullshit opportunistic outrage!

[MannyGoldstein]

70. You continue to not answer my question. nt

[SwampG8r]

309. but they all seem to agree

bush policies are all ok if a dem does them

[DFab420]

74. BUt see all he has to say is you haven't answered his question and move on

You can't actually talk to him because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

151. Not uncomfortable. Just irrelevant. Congress approved the use of force against members of Al Qaeda.

It was part of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. As far as I know, the part of that law that gave the President the authority to use force against members of terrorist organizations has thus far held up as legal. I don't agree with everything that was in that law, but until its struck down, its the law.

[Evergreen Emerald]

167. "It will never happen to me" does not a lasting Constituton make...

"Are you a terrorist?" That is a dangerous way to enforce a Constitution.

Remember Bush? He though liberals were and violated the rights of liberal groups while in office. He was using the terror laws to tap the phones of citizens and infiltrating groups of progressives against our Constitution.

"Are you a terrorist?" Apparently, our lives are no longer protected under the Constitution, but on whether or not the leader of the month decides how to define our behavior.

[treestar]

54. Probably several

And he did not turn himself in, nor say he wanted a trial. Because of course he was not going to do that.

[DCBob]

57. Was Hitler indicted?

[MNBrewer]

59. Was Hitler killed by the Allies?

FOr that matter, ever heard of the Nuremberg Trials? TRIALS?????

[DCBob]

66. nobody really knows for sure what happened to Hitler.

However, he could have been easily killed by allied bombings. Would you have been upset about that?

[MNBrewer]

73. He committed suicide and his body was burned along with Eva Braun's

Or maybe he was abducted by aliens.

[DCBob]

76. Maybe but he could have killed by the allies. They bombed the shit out of Berlin.

would you be complaining he got no trial?

[MNBrewer]

78. Nuremberg Trials

[DCBob]

80. for those that happened to survive the bombings.

did the allies hold back to make sure they got fair trials?

[MNBrewer]

84. We should have been carpet bombing Yemen?

[DCBob]

85. no.

[MNBrewer]

99. Well that's what we were doing to Germany

And bonus points for bringing up Hitler first.

[treestar]

113. It was a war

This is a war of sorts. HIgher tech than then.

But you haven't answered the question. Say Hitler had not killed himself. Say the Allies just killed him without a trial. Would that have been an outrage?

[MNBrewer]

115. This is no war!

And were the Nuremberg Trials a waste of time?

[SwampG8r]

310. and say he got a sex change and became margret thatcher

and then say he went to poland for sunday school and ate ham
and then say he got run over by a truck and then say he was ok and went for ice cream

[former9thward]

128. The allies did not bomb Berlin with the objective of killing Hitler.

If that was there objective they would have bombed Hitler's vacation home, the Berghof , in Batavia. They didn't.

[Autumn]

93. TRIALS?????

How quaint. Why whine over the Constitution it's just a goddamn piece of paper, and Obama reaffirmed that.

[MNBrewer]

100. We don't even need indictments any more

YOu just get your name on a list and viola! You might as well be a convicted and sentenced criminal!

[MannyGoldstein]

68. Was Hitler a US citizen? nt

[DCBob]

72. does that matter?

[DRoseDARs]

175. It does. Hitler wasn't a US citizen, al-Aulaqi was. The Geneva Conventions werent written yet either

So that's a non-starter too.

[DCBob]

199. I think we should be just as concerned about unjust killing of non US citizens.

having a different passport shouldnt make it right or wrong.

[DRoseDARs]

249. Two words: Legal jurisdiction. There was none for Hitler, there was for al-Aulaqi.

If you're going to compare apples and oranges, at least make sure you bring actual fruit.

[msanthrope]

160. Incitement to murder. Convicted of it, too. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

188. In the US? Link?

Thanks.

[BeHereNow]

178. Crickets... only a question to whether of not YOU are a terrorist,

This place is getting surreal.
BHN

[Donald Ian Rankin]

334. None, same as anyone else killed in a war.

I presume you're not suggesting that before firing a shot on a battlefield you need to try every soldier on the enemy army?

If the American government starts using a military approach when it has the option to use a criminal one - if, for example, it assassinates someone on American soil, or in a country where having them arrested and extradited was viable, I think that your panic will become justifiable. But at present it isn't.

"The government should be treating Al Quaeda as criminals rather than as a military enemy" is arguably a legitimate position, but as far as I can see you haven't even attempted to make that case, you've just resorted to sloganeering.

[Ignis]

44. So if the ACLU is labelled a terrorist organization by a (R) president....

:shrug:

[SlimJimmy]

96. Be very careful with matches around that strawman. I can't believe that

these comparisons are even being made.

[Evergreen Emerald]

172. It is no strawman...it is the basis of the argument and the reason for our Constitution

Our very freedom should not depend on one man's definition of terrorist. "It will never happen to me cause I am not a terrorist" does not a Constitution make.

Seriously, no wonder our country is so very F'd up. Even progressives think the Constitution is optional. It is the foundation of our very freedom.

[Ignis]

179. ^This.

[Kahuna]

182. Where does the congress give you the freedom to declare yourself

an enemy of state without suffering the appropriate consequences? If you openly declare yourself and agent of al queda (sp?), We have consequences spelt out in our laws to deal with that.

The ACLU, used as a strawman in a previous post IS NOT a terrorist on foreign soil, plotting to kill Americans.

[COLGATE4]

196. There is no such thing as "an enemy of the state" legally. The word

you are struggling to come up with is 'Teason', which in fact is very clearly mentioned in the Constitution. Not only is it mentioned, but what you have to do to commit Treason is clearly defined. Al Awlaki doesn't meet that definition.

[SlimJimmy]

205. Get back with me when the ACLU is declared a terrorist organization by this government. Until then

it's truly a bullshit argument and the perfect strawman.

[SwampG8r]

311. these are not progressives saying this is a good thing

these are conservatives
look now while they have the masks up

[provis99]

320. Nixon labelled the ACLU an enemy of America.

so it ain't no strawman, pal.

[SlimJimmy]

325. Was anyone from the ACLU assasinated by an airstrike under Nixon?

Get real. A HUGE strawman still, pal.

[provis99]

338. well Nixon did kill 4 students at Kent State.

and had thousands of Vietnamese politicians and officials assassinated. Plus you don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is.

[SlimJimmy]

341. I understand completely what a strawman argument is. And saying that

the ACLU will be next is as big a strawman as I can think of. So, tell me again how those students at Kent State were pre-*targeted* for assassination? These replies just keep getting lamer and lamer.

[provis99]

343. since you didn't say what a strawman is, you obviously don't know.

this conversation is pointless, because you are boring.

[SlimJimmy]

345. And you're an idiot. So we're even (nt)

[phleshdef]

218. If the ACLU starts participating in plans to kill Americans as part of a war against America...

...then they would and should suffer the consequences that come with that.

Now of course the ACLU is virtually the opposite from Al Qaeda in every single way which renders your question about as fucking silly as it gets, but there you have it.

[a simple pattern]

284. What if a member of the ACLU smashes the window of a Starbucks?

[Vattel]

152. It's one thing to disagree with Manny on this.

But to say that his view, which is held by many Consititutional scholars is stupid is just plain ignorant.

[lob1]

4. K&R.

[jenmito]

6. “It is ridiculous to say our argument leads to the conclusion that the president can assassinate who

he wants,” Letter said.

He said the administration’s efforts are aimed “against somebody who is formally and officially designated as a global terrorist, who is attempting to carry out operations continually in order to kill Americans.”

Mr. Awlaki is a leader of the Yemen-based group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which claimed responsibility for the makeshift bombs recently discovered in air cargo bound for the US.

On Monday, he was quoted in a video displayed on militant websites urging Muslims to take up arms against Americans.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1108/US-says-it-has-legal-authority-to-kill-American-born-Anwar-al-Awlaki

[MannyGoldstein]

7. So which judicial body indicted or convicted him?

We have courts. There's a reason for them.

[jenmito]

12. Read my post #9. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

14. I did, and it provides zero answers to my question. nt

[jenmito]

17. Your question is irrelevant in regards to why it was justified to kill al-Awlaki. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Having a judicial system is irrelevant?

Wow.

Wow.

[jenmito]

26. In al-Awlaki's case, yes.

Keep trying.

Keep trying.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. So the judiciary is irrelevant when inconvenient.

Oh, just fabulous. There's a lot of wonderful history on your side.

[jenmito]

32. Give it up. He's a terrorist who declared war on America and helped Americans kill

other Americans. You planning on doing the same thing-being an inspirational leader for al Qaeda? Fabulous!

[MannyGoldstein]

36. You seem unable to answer my very simple and basic question.

If that's the case, then you should rethink the issue.

[jenmito]

43. YOU seem unable to accept the facts given to you over and over. If you're thinking of

becoming a leader of al Qaeda and declaring war on America, maybe you should rethink the issue.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. I guess we'll let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.

As to who is right here.

History will decide, too.

[jenmito]

48. Yup. And we'll all be watching for your videos declaring jihad on America.

:hi:

[MNBrewer]

63. I guess terrorists can only be dealt with through extrajudicial killing, is the point??

:sarcasm:

[treestar]

114. Some can be tried

Some have been, like Moussaoui. It's going to depend on the circumstances.

[MNBrewer]

117. and if some, why not all?

[DRoseDARs]

176. Because you can't thump your chest as hard over a conviction vs. a drone attack. n/t

[MNBrewer]

37. Star Chambers

Bills of Attainder essentially.

[MedicalAdmin]

125. Adams once asked "will we be a nation of laws or a nation of men?"

The OP used hyperbole to make a point, but the root concern, that of the primacy of equal application of the law for all people, is valid.

The mention of waiting for the OP's terroristic video is more than a variation of the old "love it or leave it" argument.

Are we a nation of laws? Or are we moving in the wrong direction?

[a simple pattern]

285. Exercise for the reader:

Find the weasel words in the citation above!

[jenmito]

9. He was on the CIA's Capture or Kill List. Read here for justification of his killing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=786247&mesg_id=786247

[MannyGoldstein]

13. So why wasn't evidence presented in a court of law?

Basic, simple stuff.

[jenmito]

21. The evidence was all over TV and the internet for a long time-videos of al-Awlaki declaring war

on America, instructing Americans to kill other Americans, etc. Keep reaching, though. You're getting nowhere.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. If there was evidence of a crime, why no indictment or trial?

Pretty basic stuff.

[jenmito]

29. He was put on the CIA's capture or kill list after he declared war on America. If you do the same

thing, the same thing could happen to you. Pretty basic stuff.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. So why no indictment or trial?

Simple question: if you know the answer, please share it.

[jenmito]

35. I told you and I gave you links to read. Simple answers. Please get real. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

41. All I see is justification for killing him: nothing about why due process should be ignored. nt

[jenmito]

46. That's right. There is justification for killing him. Sorry it doesn't fit into your little box of

what "should be."

[MannyGoldstein]

49. OK: why do we have a judiciary?

Thanks.

[jenmito]

60. It doesn't apply to this guy. HE declared war against the U.S. He was put on the CIA's list and he

was legitimately killed. Period.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. So why do we have a judiciary?

Thanks.

[phleshdef]

217. For regular ass criminals. Use some common sense.

[Mr Deltoid]

330. When a secret grand jury hands down an indictment of mafioso or a drug lord...

Are they 'regular ass' criminals?

[MNBrewer]

77. of COURSE the Judiciary applies!

You use the word "legitimately" here. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

[The Green Manalishi]

81. If you declare that you intend to kill me, I say that's all the due process needed

to kill your ass..

Seriously. You would complain if the cops had a sniper, who had been shooting at people in their sights and didn't take the shot, but instead waited for 'due process.

Somebody puts out a video saying "I'm going to blow up your city/kill you/etc", then Democrat or Republican, I expect my President so see that the person is killed before they can carry out their intent.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNBrewer]

39. Because we no longer need due process

We have to look forward, not backward
We have to Win The Future
Due process is SO 18th Century

[Kahuna]

11. If you don't go to Yemen or Afghanistan and join with the jihadists you

have nothing to fear. Otherwise, I expect my country to hunt you down and dispose of you like a rabid dog in the street.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Who determines whether or not he's a terrorist kickin' it with jihadists?

[Kahuna]

25. He determines it when he goes to "kick it" with them. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

31. How do we know for sure if he is?

[MannyGoldstein]

34. 'Cause *The Decider*, decides.

We could have courts decide - but that, apparently, is for chumps.

[jenmito]

38. He made videos bragging about it and giving American terrorists marching orders.

[MNBrewer]

40. So what?

[jenmito]

50. Watch Hardball now and watch the experts explaining "so what." n/t

[MNBrewer]

62. If there is evidence, present it to a Grand Jury and get an Indictment

What's so difficult about that?

[jenmito]

65. He declared war on America. He put out many videos instructing others to kill Americans. He was

an enemy combatant. He's dead now. Good.

[MNBrewer]

118. Yeah, that's terrible stuff to do.

At least indict him.

[MNBrewer]

95. That Hardball segment was gibberish!

Enemy killed on the field?

What field? The field of battle is everywhere? That's no war!

[MedicalAdmin]

129. Hardball? Seriously?

Wow.

[SwampG8r]

312. i made a video once that showed me doing magic tricks

editing helps so much
i didnt know videography was a capital offence

[COLGATE4]

197. Brilliant legal reasoning. Sounds like it came from FR.

[Bake]

15. I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, this guy was a bad guy, an enemy of the United States actively working to attack it. Who decides who the NEXT enemy of the state is? Or who the next "terrorist" is. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, the saying goes.

On the other hand, either we are a nation of laws or we are not.

I lean toward the latter.

Bake

[dixiegrrrrl]

58. I lean toward the "or not".

Which has sadly become the obvious reality over the last 12 or so years.

[SidDithers]

18. pffffftttttt...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Do you Canadians similarly execute people without judicial involvement? nt

[SwampG8r]

313. canada dropping drones on their citizens?

[rug]

22. And there will be a spirited debate in GD about it.

[cottonseed]

27. I wished they'd come for the drama queens.

[wryter2000]

55. !

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

64. LOL...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Kahuna]

119. Oh no you di'int!

:popcorn:

[These Eyes]

153. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[madamesilverspurs]

47. How to render an avatar ironic...

[treestar]

51. That's true

Especially if you join up with Al Qaeda.

[DCBob]

61. I doubt it.. unless you are doing things that are a serious threat to our national security.

so are you??

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Or until The Decider *decides* that I'm doing something that's a serious threat.

Because courts are so 20th century, I guess.

[DCBob]

75. Depends how serious the threat is. If its very serious and imminent then you are in trouble.

so does that fit you?

[MannyGoldstein]

79. If The Decider decides that I'm a serious threat.

Yes?

[DCBob]

82. who are you claming is "The Decider"?

[MannyGoldstein]

87. Our President. nt

[DCBob]

92. It's not that simple. There are hundreds of people involved in these decsions.

Legal, military and security advisors and analysts. Its a very careful and deliberate decision. At least it is in this adminsitration. It was not during the Bush/Cheney era.

[Cali_Democrat]

101. Who makes the ultimate decision?

[Cali_Democrat]

104. BTW, do you have a link that describes the hundreds of people involved

in these "careful" and deliberate" decisions?

Thank you in advance.

[Major Hogwash]

139. Yeah, but you can't have it.

It's classified.

[DCBob]

198. sorry, if I told you I'd have to tombstone you.

;)

[MedicalAdmin]

140. That is kinda the point isn't it?

Not everyone in charge will be rational (see: the Bush years).

It is way past time to get back to one law applying to all people.

[DCBob]

187. yes, that is good point.

I did not trust the Bush/Cheney admin on these matters but to restrict all security operations in this administration because the previous one was corrupt would not be wise.

[MNBrewer]

138. What was the imminent threat in this circumstance?

[DCBob]

200. read this..

from cbsnews..

"The administration has tried to make very clear that this was an act of self-defense, that Awlaki was part of not only al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, but he was the external operations chief. He was ongoing in his plotting against American citizens - not only having done so in the past, but continuing to do so in an imminent way," said CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/01/earlyshow/saturday/main20114273.shtml

[MNBrewer]

201. I don't believe that

I've also heard that he wasn't involved in operations, so...

[DCBob]

202. Well, I do.

so there.

[MNBrewer]

204. It's inconceivable that a Presidential Administration would lie to further its goals

[DFab420]

83. Anwar al-Awlaki once said...

We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not."


I guess that it's fine that he wanted to implement the laws his own twisted view of Islam throughout the world right? I mean the Jewish/Christian/Taoist/Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim populations of the world would totally be fine if something like that happened.

MannyGoldstein everyone..Defender of the helpless and meek terrorists of the world. Where-ever there is danger he'll be there, Where-ever a terrorist leader is caught, killed, or harmed, he will rise up. Defending the rights of those who don't even care what rights our country has! W00T....

[MannyGoldstein]

90. I'm defending rhe rule of law, not al-Awlaki

But thanks for playing.

[DFab420]

94. Oh really? Where was your outrage at Troy Davis' murder? Oscar Grant? Osama Bin Laden?

You are only here to drum up some shit. It's pretty transparent

[MannyGoldstein]

102. If you search DU, you'll see which one of us is shit drumming.

Accusing people without first doing the research is petty.

[ClarkUSA]

105. Then link to similar OPs of outrage by you re: Troy Davis, Oscar Grant, and Osama Bin Laden.

[xocet]

111. Here is a link to a comment that relates to your request:

The comment is enough to establish the attitude of the person (MannyGoldstein) whom you have engaged - an OP is unnecessary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1981086#1981199

[ClarkUSA]

112. Tame stuff. No outrage there. Still waiting for similar OPs of outrage....

re: Troy Davis, Oscar Grant, and Osama Bin Laden.

[xocet]

122. Who made you the judge of the quality of another's outrage? n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

143. It's an election of one. I have found MGs post to consistent on the underlying issue...

of the rule of law.

I stand with this position much like I stand with unions and with those occupying wall street. The issue isn't whether this guy was a bad dude. What I have seen indicates that he probably is, but it should go to court before a kill order is issued. What is the point of a judiciary otherwise?

[ClarkUSA]

150. Moving the goalpost? It's clear that Manny didn't post similar OPs out outrage re: Troy Davis...

... Oscar Grant and OBL. I guess only nailing the head of Al-Qaeda in Yemen rates big enough for comparisons to Nazis. :sarcasm:

[xocet]

164. That is right - you did move those goalposts. Have a good night. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

169. That's a false statement. You did. And I called you on it.

[xocet]

195. You are correct in stating that you provided a false statement. n/t

[YellowCosmicSun]

210. You haven't changed much since second grade, have you? Playground tactics.

[xocet]

331. If you were to read the thread...

you would see that he has done exactly what is attributed to him.

He does not address the issue and hides behind the need for an OP. Pointing that out to him is not a tactic.

By the way, you need to watch out for clothes dryers - historically, they have been very dangerous to your kin.

[DFab420]

110. I searched man I looked high and low for your posts. I found some discussing the Troy Davis case.

The next mention of bin Laden's death was you saying you were happy we was dead and that our medical system is killing 15 people a day or something like that.

Nothing amounting to the use of a poem about NAZI's coming to kill everyone.

[SwampG8r]

315. now they will demand you provide

threads of outrage over those named
yet where was THEIR outrage?

[MedicalAdmin]

141. Manny has been consistent on this issue of the rule of law.

You are bring a rubber knife to gun fight with this claim.

[BklnDem75]

307. Only his attacks on this Admin has been consistent

[SwampG8r]

314. where was yours?

troy davis ......really?

[xocet]

108. Kudos for your valiant defense of the Rule of Law....

Sadly, the inappropriately cheering hordes of the Tea Party Debates apparently have their "progressive/liberal" counterparts. Previously, I did not think that "progressives/liberals" would make good authoritarian followers, but I suppose that I was quite wrong.

The Authoritarians: (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/)

[Kahuna]

146. When you denouce your country and your countrymen, don't expect

any respect or sympathy from me. When you openly recruit jihadists to do harm to innocent Americans, do not expect respect or sympathy from me. To me, the moment you join with the terrorists in a foreign land to do harm to my country, you give up your due process. It would be different if he had been apprehended in America, but he was not, and I don't believe that we should risk the lives of our service members to capture him. American or not, he was an enemy combatant plotting against our country, and he got was he was entitled to receive. :patriot: HOLLER!

[xocet]

162. Well...

I mean no offense, but your writing would be improved if you (personally) would use the third person singular instead of writing an accusatory piece.

Beyond that, who cares anything about your opinion. The rule of law is more important than your misguided jingoistic patriotism.

[Kahuna]

181. That is how I feel personally. If you didn't care about my opinion,

why the hell did you read it? Phony!

[SwampG8r]

316. dont call them progressives or liberals

call them what they are
conservatives

[tcaudilllg]

180. I daresay Eric Cantor would say the same thing

only more to the tune of "We will implement the rule of Greed in America by the quill of the pen, whether the masses like it or not."

[walerosco]

298. How are we sure he said all that?

This is why you need to present your evidence to a grand jury to determine how credible your evidence is.

[Cherchez la Femme]

303. So let's lower ourselves to al-Awlaki's level,

toss out our laws, our Constitution...

Yes, surely that's the correct answer.

Besides, we SO suck at extraordinary rendition!
Why, Guantanamo is virtually like a ghost town; it was promised to have been closed down,
once upon a time...

[Swede]

86. Better turn yourself in.

You shouldn't have declared war on the USA,either. Or encouraged others to kill Americans. Manny,your a bad guy,turn yourself in.

[DCBob]

88. Manny's just keyboard terrorist..

I think he's safe.. for now.

[DFab420]

97. No tafter Obama's killbots find him and imprison us all in FEMA camps!!!!

dont you see what's going on here!!! AHHHHHH!H!H!HH!!HH!!!!!:crazy: :crazy: :nuke: :nuke: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[TheKentuckian]

98. Turn himself in for what? He wasn't even fucking charged.

[ClarkUSA]

109. You're defending the head of Al-Qaeda in Yemen who mentored US terrorists. Interesting.

"The death of Awlaki is a major blow to al Qaeda's most active operational affiliate. Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans. He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. He directed the failed attempt to blow up U.S. cargo planes in 2010. And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.

The death of Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore, this success is a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years.

Awlaki and his organization have been directly responsible for the deaths of many Yemeni citizens. His hateful ideology and targeting of innocent civilians has been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims and people of all faiths, and he has met his demise because the government and the people of Yemen have joined the international community in a common effort against al Qaeda."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/politics/main20113918.shtml

[MannyGoldstein]

185. Your hatred of due process is noted. nt

[TheKentuckian]

288. I asked what charges he had been indicted on that he should have remanded himself to

our authorities on? I now have have you explain how that is a defense of the individual Awlaki?

The expectation of charges and an indictment are what you call a defense?

Prosecution is the new "soft on crime" and I guess entitled to due process is the new "support crime"?

You are entering (or rather dug in, in the middle of) justice is deserved or not deserved territory which has only ever gone one way...justice is lost for the innocent and guilty alike.

Remember that and think on it. Once justice becomes something can be deserved or not it does not exist.

[Major Hogwash]

135. He was charged in the Yemen courts. You need to read more about it.

Before sounding off.

[TheKentuckian]

292. I sure do. I missed the part where convictions in Yemen substitute for our jurisprudence

or where we operate as their button men. Should I look to the "Decider" comics to start?

[Major Hogwash]

321. This wasn't just concerning our jurisprudence. This was a joint operation between our 2 countries.

That's upholding international law, which obviously is not your strong suit.

[Little Star]

120. Is al-Awlaki even still a citizen of the USA????? Anyone know the answer? n/t

[MNBrewer]

126. Being as he's dead

I'd say no.

[Major Hogwash]

137. As much as Benedict Arnold was at the time of his death.

Almost as much, anyway.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

121. You have officially defended a known terrorist more than you have Obama.

What a surprise.

[MannyGoldstein]

124. Do you believe that the ACLU is pro-Nazi

Because they defend free speech?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

131. Did those Neo-Nazis call for jihad against America?

Did they meet with some of the 9/11 hijackers?

Did they encourage the Fort Hood shooter?

Did they help plan a failed attempt to blow up an American airplane?

Did they willingly join an organization whose mission statement involves specifically killing as many Americans as possible?

There is no comparison.

[MNBrewer]

132. These people who think that these extrajudicial assassination tools are just peachy in Obama's hands

had better think long and hard about whether they would be so sanguine if a Republican were in the Oval Office. Rest assured, some day there WILL be one. It's a certainty that some day a Republican will win.

Would President Perry, who shows no compunction about executing people, be a good person to be exercising this power?
How about a President Bachmann, or Palin, or Cristie, or Gingrich?

These tools are dangerous and need to be eliminated.

or, just go ahead and add another gold star to the ceiling. I mean, Bills of Attainder aren't THAT bad, are they?

[MedicalAdmin]

145. +1

[Kahuna]

147. I don't give a hoot who is in the Oval Office and issues such an

order against a traitor plotting against my country.

[MNBrewer]

191. The constitution is clear on the issue of treason

What happened to Awlaki is not in accordance with it.

[NorthCarolina]

229. +1

[GreenStormCloud]

342. Perry did not have the authority to stop any of the Texas executions.

Texas governors can't commute sentences or issue pardons. All they can do is issue a single 30 day stay of execution, one stay per prisoner. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles handles those. Texas prisoners were also executed under Democratic governor Ann Richards.

[YellowCosmicSun]

134. Are you a terrorist, Manny?

[BeHereNow]

177. You appear to be on a hunt for terrorists on DU tonight.

Did you REALLY just ask that question?
AGAIN with the "terrorist" crap ????
And asking MANNY, of all people, if HE is a terrorist?
:popcorn: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
BHN

[YellowCosmicSun]

209. Manny, implied he would be assassinated like al-Awlaki. I asked if it was for the same reason.

One good hyperbole deserves another.

[SwampG8r]

317. dont encourage the sock puppet

after a month this one is an expert on DU and its history
i am impressed by its studiousness

[lumberjack_jeff]

239. His definition doesn't matter. Neither does yours. Only your sovereign has a relevant opinion. n/t

[jenmito]

142. Why should we help you?

It may be the only way to get you TSed. ;)

[Cherchez la Femme]

214. Lovely. Your desire noted.

no stupid fucking smiley face needed.

[SwampG8r]

318. any thing to silence those in disagreement with them

disgusting actually

[mikekohr]

148. When You Dedicate Your Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children

you should not be surprized when we fly an un-manned aircraft filled with explosives through your windshield.

[Kahuna]

149. In a nutshell...

:applause:

[ClarkUSA]

154. FACT: Al-Awlaki was indicted in two countries (Yemen and Great Britain) last year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2027764&mesg_id=2028709

FACT: A jury in the UK put the guy on the other end of his emails in jail for 30 years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2027764&mesg_id=2033505

[SadPanda]

155. Ok, so if tomorrow you move to the Middle East and advocate and plan the death of Americans...

You could be killed by the American Government. Is that what you meant to say?

[MannyGoldstein]

189. Where's the evidence that he commited a crime?

If there's evidence, then indict.

I don't think there's any solid evidence of a crime.

[Tx4obama]

156. As long as YOU do NOT join al Qaeda and if YOU do NOT declare WAR on the USA - you'll be okay. n/t

[MrSlayer]

157. Are you in Al Queda?

I didn't think so. And being that you are not, I don't believe you have much to worry about. Using that holocaust mantra in this case is not only insulting, it's idiotic.

All this hand wringing and teeth gnashing over the killing of a terrorist is unseemly and ludicrous. No one is going to start sending drones into Wichita or Flagstaff any time soon.

[MannyGoldstein]

161. So I don't have to worry when our Constitution is ignored?

OK, I feel better.

I guess that judicial oversight is overrated.

[MrSlayer]

165. It wasn't ignored.

This was perfectly legal.

[MNBrewer]

190. It was completely ignored

This was totally illegal.

[phleshdef]

221. Unless the Supreme Court overturned the UMAF someday, its completely legal in every single way.

And even then, I don't think it would be a retroactive thing, which means it would still be technically legal.

[MNBrewer]

223. AUMF does not authorize targeted killing, number 1.

Unconstitutional laws don't make actions based on them prior to the declaration, constitutional.

[phleshdef]

225. The AUMF does not restrict the amount of force used against terrorists at all

If Congress passes a law, it is the LAW OF THE LAND until the Supreme Court says otherwise or the law is overturned by Congress later, period. This is exactly why we have a Congress and a separate judicial branch to keep them in check, in the first place. So until you can show me a Supreme Court decision overturning the AUMF as unconstitional, then you have absolutely nothing.

And let me be clear, I would be happy to see the Supreme Court overturn a lot of those Bush era laws. But its probably not going to happen. And until it does, Presidents will always have this type of authority. They can cite the AUMF as their justification for exercising it and every single time, that citation will keep said President from ever facing any kind of legal consequence over it because they are protected by the authorization that Congress granted. Nothing short of a Supreme Court decision or a new law will change that, period.

[MNBrewer]

228. AUMF does not authorize target killing of anyone

That's a choice that President Bush and now President Obama have made, given the essentially dictatorial powers supposedly granted by AUMF.

AUMF STILL has to be governed by the the Constitution, e.g, 5th Amendment.

[phleshdef]

231. The AUMF grants the President the authority to make that choice.

And until a challenge is issued in court that puts a halt on the law or overturns the law altogether, then it stands as the law. Its on the books.

You are having to deal with the same problem that right wing gun nuts have to deal with whenever they have to face the fact that gun ownership regulation is the law of the land. The constitution might say we have the right to bear arms and it doesn't spell out any room for Congress to make exceptions. Yet Congress and state governments make exceptions and regulate gun ownership and the Supreme Court has not said this is unconstitutional. Therefore, the current state of the law in practice is that everyone has the right to bear arms, within exceptions made by other national, state and local laws. Without a SC decision to say otherwise, this is the way the law works.

So Congress granted the President the authority to use pretty much whatever force he deems necessary against members of Al Qaeda. It does not exempt Americans who join Al Qaeda. So until a Supreme Court decision says otherwise, this is the current state of the law in practice.

Laws passed by Congress are to be THE practiced law until a Supreme Court decision says otherwise or the law is overturned. If we didn't do things that way, then nothing Congress passes would ever mean anything and would have no power at all. Smaller bodies of government could just ignore the levels of legislative bodies that preside over them.

[MNBrewer]

234. It does no such thing.

Congress would have to have listed targeted killing as authorized in order for that to be the case, and it's clearly not.

[phleshdef]

240. Congress listed "all necessary and appropriate use of force", Thats almost as broad as it gets.

So yes, it definately does such a thing.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

170. Who here agrees with Newt Gingrich's comment re: due process? Prove it.

[Whisp]

173. sorry, think I have to wash my dog that day.

[JoePhilly]

183. When I read the title, I was sure you were announcing your impending move to Yemen.

Oh well.

[MannyGoldstein]

184. So it's cool to execute unindicted citizens in Yemen?

Your opinion is noted.

[ClarkUSA]

203. Al-Awlaki was indicted in two countries (Yemen and Great Britain) last year.

Furthermore, the UK man he was sending emails to was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

[MannyGoldstein]

238. Can you furnish a link to the UK indictment?

Thanks.

[JoePhilly]

305. I don't think my post offered a "coolness factor" on any of this.

I simply commented on what I thought your plan might be given your OP title.

And then past that .... I also kind of expected you to use this topic to claim that the Obama administration killed this terrorist as part of Obama's larger, and so far failed effort, to destroy Social Security ...

So ... when you didn't go directly there, that also threw me off.

[COLGATE4]

192. Too bad more DUer's don't understand what you're saying, Mannie.

Instead, be prepared for an avalanche of "Fuck 'em, shoot them all' chest-thumping that has incredibly sprung up here on DU in the past 24 hours. You could make a list of comments from DU and FR on the subject and mix them together and you'd never be able to tell which was which. It seems that many DUer's who claim to support the Constitition and its legal protections for US citizens are now more than happy to agree with Caligula's verdict that "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper".

[ClarkUSA]

206. President Obama followed the rule of law and ordered this singular act legally via the AUMF.

Al-Awlaki was indicted by both Yemen and Great Britain last year. The UK man who he sent emails to has gone to jail for 30 years. President Obama has the authority via the AUMF to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determines "planned, authorised, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks, or who harboured said persons or groups. Note that the AUMF purposefully doesn't delineate any territorial specificity or geographical limits.

[COLGATE4]

215. You need to re-read the AUMF. It says:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons

The authorization is specific to the events surrounding the attacks of 9/11. What is your evidence that Al-Alawki 'planned, authorized, committed or aided' in the 9/11 attacks?

This, leaving aside the entire question as to whether this can pass Constitutional muster when it involves a U.S. citizen.

[ClarkUSA]

219. You need to re-read Al-Awlaki's bio. He has been indeed linked to 9/11 bombers.

Furthermore:

"Al Qaeda is the organization that planned, committed and authorized the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was a member of Al Qaeda and he didn't try to make any secret of that whatsoever. The last sentence you qutoes also mentions that this is in order to prevent furture acts of international terrorism against the United States by such organizations or persons, in which case, he was fully involved in trying to make something like that happen. In other words, he meets the qualifications 100%."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=786410&mesg_id=787148

[phleshdef]

224. You need to re-read your own post.

Al Qaeda is the organization that planned, committed and authorized the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was a member of Al Qaeda and he didn't try to make any secret of that whatsoever. The last sentence you qutoes also mentions that this is in order to prevent furture acts of international terrorism against the United States by such organizations or persons, in which case, he was fully involved in trying to make something like that happen. In other words, he meets the qualifications 100%.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[COLGATE4]

216. With such a deep and thoughtful response I am appropriately chagrined.

:boring:

[YellowCosmicSun]

245. you didn't have to respond, but you did. You know what I'm saying is true.

[BeHereNow]

294. You are so entertaining...

I really appreciate your deep analysis on this topic.
Please, continue to elaborate in more depth.
BHN

[Sheepshank]

207. Fuck...I take you off 'ignore' for one day as I see this?

"I could be executed tomorrow. Please help.
Posted by MannyGoldstein"

quick, tell us where you are.....

Unrec for stupid stupid hyperbolic drubble....oh and back onto ignore.

[Cherchez la Femme]

302. Are you organizing a vigilante committee?

Fitting.

[Cherchez la Femme]

208. They obstinately refuse to get it, Manny...

and it's deliberate;
but thank you for trying to bring out their conscience :hug:

[YellowCosmicSun]

211. Why didn't you try to bring out al-Awlaki's conscience?

[ClarkUSA]

213. Get a clue. See Reply #209 for the facts. Or keep ignoring them in favor of empty rhetoric.

[phleshdef]

220. I think they'd much rather work to validate the right's claims that the left is proterrorist.

[ClarkUSA]

222. Ah. But of course.

SOS

Thanks. :hi:

[Cherchez la Femme]

226. Fuck the Constitution, eh?

A proper bloodlust worked up in defense of the infallible King.

Congrats.

[phleshdef]

227. Nothing unconstitutional occurred. So I reject your foamy mouthed bullshit on its face.

[Cherchez la Femme]

301. Au contraire, in fact rather pithy. The foam is around your mouth

from what I do not care to contemplate.

[cliffordu]

230. More strident hysterical bullshit

about killing a prick that bragged about killing americans and called for you, Manny, to be slaughtered.

Anything to blame Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

232. The Constitution doesn't make exceptions for pricks who want to kill me

We have laws and a judiciary. I hope that one day you'll recognize that.

[cliffordu]

233. Anyone threatening to kill my family and

I gotta take them at their word. Period.

[MannyGoldstein]

236. Do you know of any quotes where he threatens to kill Americans?

Any firsthand witnesses to his having threatened, plotted, or carried out a murder?

[ClarkUSA]

241. "YouTube removes Awlaki hate videos" (The Guardian, 3 November 2010)

Hundreds of videos inciting violence, including some linked to the suspected al-Qaida mastermind of the cargo plane bomb plot, were removed from YouTube today.

The videos were highlighted after the conviction of Roshonara Choudhry for attempting to kill the former government minister Stephen Timms. She was radicalised watching internet sermons by Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamist cleric now in Yemen who the US suspects masterminded several terrorist plots... In one sermon, 44 Ways to Support Jihad, Awlaki told followers: "Jihad today is obligatory on every capable Muslim."... Last week a US Congressman, Anthony Weiner, told the New York Daily News he wanted YouTube to pull down more than 700 clips of Awlaki.

"We are facilitating the recruitment of homegrown terror," he said. "There is no reason we should give killers like al-Awlaki access to one of the world's largest bully pulpits so they can inspire more violent acts within our borders, or anywhere else in the world."

It is understood that YouTube has asked for Weiner's list of clips as part of its investigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/03/youtube-removes-awlaki-videos

[MannyGoldstein]

246. But do you know of any quotes where he threatens to kill Americans?

Hate is not illegal, let alone punishable by death.

[ClarkUSA]

254. "'We Will Kill Your People' - Fugitive cleric Al-Awlaki calls for murder of Americans(May 24, 2010)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oix4o

[MannyGoldstein]

261. You should know better than to quote Fox News as a source, because...

The quote was taken out of context - he was referring to our military that are absurdly occupying parts of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Oh, America, if you transgress against us, we will transgress against you, and you keep killing our people, we will kill your people,” Anwar al-Awlaki says in the video. “This is the image that we need to present. These American soldiers heading to Afghanistan and Iraq will be killed. We will kill them if we can, there in Fort Hood, or we will kill them in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

http://goatmilkblog.com/2010/05/24/fugitive-cleric-al-awlaki-warns-of-future-attacks/

Awful stuff, but not illegal as far as I can see.

That being said, it's a worse quote than others I've seen, so thanks - I learned something.

[ClarkUSA]

264. Fox News referenced Meet The Nation and showed the actual clip. Your source is goatmilkblog.com?

:rofl:

[Odin2005]

243. Our government can declare anyone a "public enemy" and kill them.

Don't you get it? You don't even have to be a terrorist like this guy was, if the government accuses you of being a terrorist you are a dead man.

[Evergreen Emerald]

296. that is what the abortion doctor killers say

They kill doctors and nurses at planned parenthood based on the exact same argument.

They are wrong--and so are you. Our Constitution is not optional. No matter how bad we think the bad-guys are.

[cliffordu]

332. When was the last time a Zygote called for the death of America??

Fail. Try harder next time.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

244. Pres. Obama followed the rule of law in this singular case. Your rhetoric is as false as it is wrong

My proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x787107

Where's yours?

[MannyGoldstein]

248. Your proof is a DU post that references Wikipedia?

Really?

[ClarkUSA]

256. Check the source footnotes that accompany the text quotes. Do you have anything but rhetoric?

[Odin2005]

251. Terrorists are not soldiers, they are criminals. The rules of war do not apply.

You are blinded by the RW "War On Terror" framing.

[jenmito]

247. Yup...

Obama can declare ANY U.S. citizen (who declares himself a member of al Qaeda, declares war on America, and joins forces overseas with al Qaeda to instruct Americans how to kill other Americans) a public enemy.

[MannyGoldstein]

250. Do you have firsthand evidence that he did any of those things?

Maybe my Google-fu is just not working well today.

Thanks in advance.

[jenmito]

255. The govt. does as does anyone with a TV or internet connection who saw the videos he made,

saying the things he said.

[MannyGoldstein]

263. Perhaps I'm dense. Help me out with specifics.

Thanks for your help.

[jenmito]

270. Nope. You're purposely being dense. You get no help from me. But once you declare war

against America, on video, and tell others to join you in your jihad against America (from another country) you'll see for yourself. :hi:

[Odin2005]

272. Terrorism is not war, it is a criminal activity.

[jenmito]

276. We're at war with al Qaeda. Awlaki declared war on America.

[Odin2005]

278. Why are you repeating RW crap?

They are a bunch of criminals, not an army. Terrorism IS A CRIME, not an act of war. That they say they are "at war with the Great Satan" is legally irrelevant.

[jenmito]

281. I'm not. Bin Laden declared war on us. So we are at war with al Qaeda, of which al-Awlaki is a

member.

[Odin2005]

287. Terrorists are not soldiers, they cannot be at war with anyone.

What Osama said is irrelevant in terms of legality.

[jenmito]

290. The ACLU sued to get al-Awlaki off the CIA's Terrorist Watch List/Kill or Capture List and lost.

Deal with it.

[Odin2005]

253. The government doesn't have to prove anything before they kill you.

They can kill you and then just tell everyone that you had terrorist connections, even if you didn't.

[jenmito]

258. We all saw Awlaki's videos declaring war on America and telling other Americans to join the jihad

against Americans. The govt. can kill anyone who did what he did. He was guilty of treason.

[Odin2005]

267. You are not guilty of treason unless you are charged and covicted.

The definition of treason is explicitly defined in the constitution. The executive cannot simply declare someone a traitor and kill them no matter what evidence they have.

[jenmito]

275. He's a traitor:

trai·tor Listen to audio/ˈtreɪtɚ/ noun
plural trai·tors
: a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/traitor

[Odin2005]

277. He had not been tried and found guilty, and thus he was not LEGALLY a traitor.

[jenmito]

280. He gave aid and comfort to our enemy. He did it on video when declaring war against the U.S. n/t

[Odin2005]

286. He still was not convicted in a court.

Just because the evidence is obvious does not mean a trial is unnecessary.

[jenmito]

291. The ACLU sued to get al-Awlaki off the CIA's Terrorist Watch List/Kill or Capture List and lost.

The killing was legal.

[COLGATE4]

289. Don't be dense. Get out your copy of the Constitution and read

what is says Treason is (Article III, Section 3). It's right there in black and white, at about a 4th Grade reading level:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[SwampG8r]

319. shame on you

you know full well that is not the constitutional definition of treason

[MannyGoldstein]

252. I guess we know how police states are allowed to take over

By the consent of the governed.

[Odin2005]

257. The Neo-Cons "War On Terror" framing has worked, even with "liberals"

Terrorists are CRIMINALS, not soldiers. People have forgotten that.

[ClarkUSA]

260. What do you think calling for "jihad" against Americans means to an Islamic terrorist? Hmm?

Pssst! It is a call to war.

[Odin2005]

265. Terrorism is not warfare, it is criminal violence.

Quit regurgitating RW framing.

[ClarkUSA]

268. Congress disagrees with you, as does the governments of Yemen & Great Britain, who indicted him.

Quit being ignorant of the facts.

[Odin2005]

271. The same governments that support authoritarian police state-ism.

Fuck that shit.

[ClarkUSA]

274. Your rancid rhetoric is not based on any facts that I can discern.

[Odin2005]

279. Your kow-towing to the BS spewed by the PTB is not based on any sense or principle.

[ClarkUSA]

282. That's "BS".... You are ignoring the rule of law, namely the AUMF, in favor of pushing nonsense.

[ClarkUSA]

259. I guess we know how bullshit false narratives are allowed to take over

By the consent of those who ignore or are ignorant of the rule of law, namely the AUMF, which was democratically approved by Congress on September 14, 2001.

[MannyGoldstein]

262. OK, we get it - you're cool with executing Americans with zero judicial oversight

Thanks for playing.

[ClarkUSA]

266. That's a false statement. Are strawman fallacies all you've got left, now that you've been debunked?

[Name removed]

304. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

306. More empty rhetoric.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

273. It's not Denial, it's Brainwashing, it's the success of RW framing about the "War on Terror".

All those posters think terrorists are soldiers on a battlefield, that is the kind of thinking the PTB wants.

[ClarkUSA]

283. Once again, your presumptions are completely devoid of anything approaching fact.

"All those posters"? Stop attacking others for dissenting with the OP on factual grounds based on the rule of law, namely the AUMF.

[TheKentuckian]

297. No act of Congress can supersede the Constitution, they can only amend it and that must be ratified.

To hear the fucking AUMF trumpeted on here is beyond putrid

[ClarkUSA]

299. Nothing President Obama did was unconstitutional. He followed the rule of law via the AUMF.

To hear Democrats defending a known traitor/the murderous leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen who's been indicted by both Yemen and Great Britain is beyond idiocy. I say this as a New Yorker.

[COLGATE4]

308. Do you fail to understand that the Constitution is the supreme law

of the land, and as such it trumps lesser legislation (AUMF)? Aside from the fact that I will bet any amount you care to name that the legislative history of the AUMF makes no mention of any consideration of assassinating U.S. citizens.

[Name removed]

295. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

293. Manny, I hope you don't run off and join al Qaeda, swear jihad against the US...

and aid in plotting violent, murderous attacks against this country and its innocents.

[ClarkUSA]

300. If he does, I hope he says hello to Al Awlaki for us.

[ellisonz]

322. This is very seriously offensive to myself and I would imagine many others on this forum..

"They" in the original context were the Nazi's. Most reasonable people would judge that Al-Qaeda and the Nazis have a lot more in common than......the Nazi's and the United States of America. I am frankly shocked no one has called you out on this gross misappropriation of Niemöller.:wtf:

I guess when they come for the infidels who don't believe in Islamic fundamentalism to a tee, waged by sudden and violent means, that's okay because they treat innocents, dissidents, and minorities oh so systematically well. Institute a dictatorship - slaughter dissent and minorities - do so without pity or concern for provocation - that is what the Nazi's stood for. Free peoples of the world (and the Soviets) died by the hundreds of thousands and tens of millions to stop this. Do you really think President Obama in ordering a military strike on Al-Qaeda leadership is not justified when the lives of innocent hundreds have already been attempted on by these depraved Nazi-admiring individuals? It's even worse because you know what your doing - you are obviously educated although it seems you just don't care - for the truth. You seem to live in a fantasy world of moral relativism and boutique political expediency. :puke:

For those that know not the origin of this quotation:

History

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. Unlike Niemöller, they gave in to the Nazis' threats. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.

The text's origin and various versions

The statement was published in a 1955 book by Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, based on interviews he had conducted in Germany several years earlier. The quotation was circulated by civil rights activists and educators in the United States in the late 1950s. Its exact origin is unclear, and at least one historian has incorrectly suggested that the text arose after Niemöller's death.<2> Other research traces the text to several speeches given by Niemöller in 1946.<1>

Nonetheless, the wording remains controversial, both in terms of its provenance, and the substance and order of the groups that are mentioned in its many versions. While Niemöller's published 1946 speeches mention Communists, the incurably ill, Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech), and people in occupied countries, the 1955 text, a paraphrase by a German professor in an interview, lists Communists, Socialists, "the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on," and ends with "the Church". Based on the explanation given by Niemöller himself in 1976, this refers to the German Protestant ('Evangelische') Church, and not to the German Catholic Church.<1> However, as claimed by Richard John Neuhaus in the November 2001 issue of his blog-like online journal 'First Things', when "asked in 1971 about the correct version of the quote, Niemöller said he was not quite sure when he had said the famous words but, if people insist upon citing them, he preferred a version that listed 'the Communists', 'the trade unionists', 'the Jews', and 'me'."<3> However, historian Harold Marcuse could not verify that interview.<1> Rather, he found a 1976 interview in which Niemöller referred to a 1974 discussion with the general bishop of the Lutheran Church of Slovakia. The 84-year-old Niemöller recalled in 1976:

There were no minutes or copy of what I said, and it may be that I formulated it differently. But the idea was anyhow: The communists, we still let that happen calmly; and the trade unions, we also let that happen; and we even let the Social Democrats happen. All of that was not our affair. The Church did not concern itself with politics at all at that time, and it shouldn't have anything do with them either. In the Confessing Church we didn't want to represent any political resistance per se, but we wanted to determine for the Church that that was not right, and that it should not become right in the Church, that's why already in '33, when we created the minister emergency federation (Pfarrernotbund), we put as the 4th point in the founding charter: If an offensive is made against ministers and they are simply ousted as ministers, because they are of Jewish lineage (Judenstämmlinge) or something like that, then we can only say as a Church: No. And that was then the 4th point in the obligation, and that was probably the first anti-antisemitic pronouncement coming from the Protestant Church.

At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, the quotation is on display in a variation that substitutes "Socialists" for "Communists." The Holocaust Museum website has a discussion of the history of the quotation.<4>

A version of the statement is also on display at the Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem in Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

I'm going to be celebrating Rosh Hashanah tomorrow along with my grandparents 66th wedding anniversary - something "they" would have gladly denied their right to, by taking their life with malice and horror. You sir, are shameless and extremely ignorant of history. This thread is hateful and deeply wrong. Good night and I would encourage you to take a long hard look at why you're posting such divisive untruths with the sole intention of offending and causing dissension. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

323. +1

I really think people are becoming desensitized to and by the divisive and offensive nature of this type of serial posting. Thank you for speaking out.

[ellisonz]

324. Only one of the preceeding 321 posts directly addresses that aspect of the OP...

...that "they" are the Nazi's. Just about every other one is a continuation of the flame war (I get sucked into it too). But I think it really might behoove DU to start enforcing what used to be a rule around here - "do not post a continuation of a flame war from another thread." I hadn't check the rules in awhile and it seems to have been drastically re-written:

Do not post anything which is disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
It is the responsibility of every DU member to help promote thoughtful discussion by staying on-topic and exercising the appropriate level of self-control. This is especially important when interacting with other DU members who are making a good-faith effort to have a thoughtful and respectful discussion. The moderators are empowered to remove any post that serves to disrupt, derail, or hijack an otherwise thoughtful discussion, if they believe doing so will help keep the thread open and on-topic so other DUers can participate in good faith. Note: The purpose of this rule is to remove the proverbial "turd in the punchbowl" -- but please be aware that the moderators are not required to pick turds out of a punchbowl filled with turds.

I think it would really raise the level of the discussion around here. I think I'm going to be off to ask the administrators later. When you open up GD or GD:P the first half dozen posts or so are often on the exact same topic and they stay up at the top. The result seems to be that LBN and the Lounge are pretty much dead in the water and get little traffic. Reduce the volume of repetitive OP's so people actually have to talk to each other instead of just talking over one another.

"Fired up, ready to go" - :thumbsup:

[jefferson_dem]

326. Good post.

Shame on the OP and those promoting such bogus, offensive moral equivalencies ... in order to prop up their petty political agenda.

[ellisonz]

329. Agreed.

[Ikonoklast]

327. If you have openly declared war and insurrection against this country,

and have encouraged others through whatever means at your disposal to kill other American citizens through violent and cowardly means, I hope you meet the same violent end that you so desperately wish upon your fellow citizens.

"As you sow, so shall you reap."

[BzaDem]

328. If you are worried, stay inside the United States. That is a bright line. If he was in the US, they

would have captured him.

Oversees, the lines between military and civilian situations are often blurred. You have every right to disagree with this blurring. But regardless of such disagreement, being in the territorial boundaries of the United States is a bright line.

[coalition_unwilling]

333. My modest proposal is that we forswear the use of trials entirely and

proceed immediately to execution, upon the mere affirmation of a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction.

[Hutzpa]

335. Are you a TERRORIST?

Are you training people to kill your fellow American citizens?

Do you have boot camps in United States and around the world
that trains people to bomb American citizens?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

336. No Time For Pen Pals

.

[JNelson6563]

339. More hysteria, how delightful.

I marvel that anyone could take you seriously on anything.

[ieoeja]

340. Today, a terrorist captured in the United States goes to trial.

In fact, to date there has not been a single terrorist executed in the United States without a trial. Not only Americans, but foreign born terrorists as well.

In most countries we would simply ask local authorities to capture you instead. For you to be a legitimate target for execution, you must be hiding in a country where we can not openly operate and where the country is too dysfunctional for local authorities to be effective either.

So out of curiosity, in which country are you currently hiding?

[GreenStormCloud]

344. The President has a responsibility to defend the lives of Americans, even from other Americans.

Inside the U.S. it is pretty easy to capture someone if you know where they are. But if someone is an active threat to the lives of Americans and can't be captured because he is in another country and surrounded by a small army, then the President must use other means to stop the attacks. In this case it mean killing Awlaki. Some Americans will live because of what Obama did. I can sleep with that. The Constitution is not a suicide pact and does not require us to sit on our hands while others plot our murder.

[Lord Helmet]

346. Help you get executed? OK.