1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
On charges that if he was actually tried wouldn't carry the death penalty, at that.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
So just like every other drone strike.
My heart fucking bleeds...
Doesn't the Constitution say every American has the right to a fair trial? Did his son deserve to die too? If there had been other drone executions of American citizens that makes it worse.
The drone execution is really one of those things that bothers me quite a lot. I don't like that Obama authorized that. Even taking that into account, I would rather have another 4 years of Obama than 4 minutes of Romney in charge. It's not hard to get my vote when you're up against the current breed of Republicans.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
So just like every other drone strike.
My heart fucking bleeds...
Doesn't the Constitution say every American has the right to a fair trial? Did his son deserve to die too? If there had been other drone executions of American citizens that makes it worse.
Right, so you are upset based on a meaningless bit of sophistry. This time the execution of a random person with no trial was wrong. Because at some point, this one was American! Those other nations? Their citizens don't count.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
He still was an American citizen when he died, he was duel citizen of Yemen and United States, and yes, executing even the non-American citizens with drone strikes are disgusting, but for Obama to shit on the United States constitution so directly is horrifying.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
So just like every other drone strike.
My heart fucking bleeds...
Doesn't the Constitution say every American has the right to a fair trial? Did his son deserve to die too? If there had been other drone executions of American citizens that makes it worse.
No, it doesn't, and the fact that you think it does is a huge problem for a number of reasons.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
Listen, during the Civil War we tried, convicted and allowed appeals of every Confederate solider between volleys.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
Listen, during the Civil War we tried, convicted and allowed appeals of every Confederate solider between volleys.
There is a right to a speedy trial. Don't complain when it's the speediest possible.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Not when they openly advocate war on the United States and the overthrow of the sitting government, and are actively working with and supporting people who have declared war on the United States.
I don't like that it was done, but I understand the reasons why and don't believe it was a violation of al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights.
He still was an American citizen when he died, he was duel citizen of Yemen and United States, and yes, executing even the non-American citizens with drone strikes are disgusting, but for Obama to shit on the United States constitution so directly is horrifying.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
So we should just starting to execute American citizens living in other countries because there has been some evidence, which we haven't seen, that somehow points him to treason?
It's not meaningless sophistry. A lot of his other points are a bit out there, but he is right about this one. I support Obama in a lot of things, but he at best looked the other way while the Justice Department gave approval to assassinate Al-Awlaki on a paper thin "self-defense" claim. He absolutely 100% should have been brought in to stand trial but, because of political expediency, he had a bomb dropped on his head instead. That is reprehensible.
This is veering off topic so I'll drop it except to say that, while Obama is better than the other guy, he has disappointed me, even shockingly so, on several occassions.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
So we should just starting to execute American citizens living in other countries because there has been some evidence, which we haven't seen, that somehow points him to treason?
Yeah right.
Again, what part of the AUMF do you not understand? You may not like it, you may think that it's the wrong approach, but that doesn't make it go away.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
So just like every other drone strike.
My heart fucking bleeds...
Doesn't the Constitution say every American has the right to a fair trial? Did his son deserve to die too? If there had been other drone executions of American citizens that makes it worse.
No, it doesn't, and the fact that you think it does is a huge problem for a number of reasons.
Uh....wow. Bill of Rights. Article V. Due process. Are you serious?
It's not meaningless sophistry. A lot of his other points are a bit out there, but he is right about this one. I support Obama in a lot of things, but he at best looked the other way while the Justice Department gave approval to assassinate Al-Awlaki on a paper thin "self-defense" claim. He absolutely 100% should have been brought in to stand trial but, because of political expediency, he had a bomb dropped on his head instead. That is reprehensible.
This is veering off topic so I'll drop it except to say that, while Obama is better than the other guy, he has disappointed me, even shockingly so, on several occassions.
It is meaningless sophistry when people take no umbridge with drone or bombing strikes on foreign nationals but raise hell when it happens to be an American.
I'm sure its obvious but I wouldn't imagine McCain or Romney would have done better in this situation.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
Enemy soldiers don't get trials. When you declare war against a nation, you assume the risk of being killed for it.
Actually, and I was surprised to learn this as well, the Supreme Court has ruled that fighting in another country's army against the United States is not grounds for loss of citizenship. "Another country's army" is obviously the operative phrase, but there is some precedence.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
So we should just starting to execute American citizens living in other countries because there has been some evidence, which we haven't seen, that somehow points him to treason?
Yeah right.
Yes. Absolutely. Again, as long as we don't make a habit of it, I'm failing to see a problem here. What, exactly, is the problem with it?
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
Because it erodes the Fifth Amendment. There is a stark difference between an active battlefield and a targeted assassination.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Not when they openly advocate war on the United States and the overthrow of the sitting government, and are actively working with and supporting people who have declared war on the United States.
I don't like that it was done, but I understand the reasons why and don't believe it was a violation of al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights.
You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".
If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.
You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think its safe to assume that you're not going to get assassinated so long as you're not, you know, living with terrorists and doing enough shit to get on the radar of the intelligence agencies.
Like, it's pretty stupid to argue a slippery slope here, it's not like Obama's going to start having Tea Party activists shot or that Romney would start executing OWS peeps.
silly geese are silly
And no one is going to not do this, so if this is your line in the sand, you need to rethink your priorities.
Want to stop it? Lobby your Congressmen. Lobby the President. Run for office, volunteer for civil rights campaigns.
Sitting at home and not voting isn't going to do shit.
1. The Assassination issue is much more complicated then that and it is ridiculous to over simplify it like that.
How is it much more complicated? What's complicated about the government assassinating an American citizen on trumped up charges. There was no trial, he had no representation in court.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
So we should just starting to execute American citizens living in other countries because there has been some evidence, which we haven't seen, that somehow points him to treason?
Yeah right.
Yes. Absolutely. Again, as long as we don't make a habit of it, I'm failing to see a problem here. What, exactly, is the problem with it?
I'll admit that within the "war on terror" framework this makes sense.
I just think that framework is a really really bad one.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".
If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.
You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing the slippery slope from "President orders assassination of a single terrorist target entrenched in enemy territory outside of U.S. borders" to "President orders assassinations of random U.S. citizens within the borders of the country."
You could equally say "if you don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, that means we can never go to war, ever, because we might accidentally shoot a citizen."
I think this is starting to veer into slippery slope arguments. Is that considered a logical fallacy?
Sorta.
It's more that the slippery slope only works if you can prove each transitive step along the way. Just assuming they all must be true because they resemble the first one is the logical fallacy technically.
Posts
Well, he is a Democrat. Common behaviors do indicate exactly how bad Democrats are at electing Democrats.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
On charges that if he was actually tried wouldn't carry the death penalty, at that.
So just like every other drone strike.
My heart fucking bleeds...
Doesn't the Constitution say every American has the right to a fair trial? Did his son deserve to die too? If there had been other drone executions of American citizens that makes it worse.
Right, so you are upset based on a meaningless bit of sophistry. This time the execution of a random person with no trial was wrong. Because at some point, this one was American! Those other nations? Their citizens don't count.
Please.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
No, it doesn't, and the fact that you think it does is a huge problem for a number of reasons.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
You guys did it in war all the damn time.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
Listen, during the Civil War we tried, convicted and allowed appeals of every Confederate solider between volleys.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
There is a right to a speedy trial. Don't complain when it's the speediest possible.
Not when they openly advocate war on the United States and the overthrow of the sitting government, and are actively working with and supporting people who have declared war on the United States.
I don't like that it was done, but I understand the reasons why and don't believe it was a violation of al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
What part of the AUMF do you not understand?
So we should just starting to execute American citizens living in other countries because there has been some evidence, which we haven't seen, that somehow points him to treason?
Yeah right.
This is veering off topic so I'll drop it except to say that, while Obama is better than the other guy, he has disappointed me, even shockingly so, on several occassions.
Again, what part of the AUMF do you not understand? You may not like it, you may think that it's the wrong approach, but that doesn't make it go away.
Uh....wow. Bill of Rights. Article V. Due process. Are you serious?
Edit: crazy boards. This is in response to CC's post below.
It is meaningless sophistry when people take no umbridge with drone or bombing strikes on foreign nationals but raise hell when it happens to be an American.
I'm sure its obvious but I wouldn't imagine McCain or Romney would have done better in this situation.
What stops Obama from calling any American he wants an enemy combatant?
Lots of shit. Stop being a conspiracy nut.
Actually, and I was surprised to learn this as well, the Supreme Court has ruled that fighting in another country's army against the United States is not grounds for loss of citizenship. "Another country's army" is obviously the operative phrase, but there is some precedence.
Yes because that is the part that is defying the Constitution.
And yet the fact that is an American is all you are complaining about.
Because it erodes the Fifth Amendment. There is a stark difference between an active battlefield and a targeted assassination.
You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".
If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.
You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Like, it's pretty stupid to argue a slippery slope here, it's not like Obama's going to start having Tea Party activists shot or that Romney would start executing OWS peeps.
silly geese are silly
And no one is going to not do this, so if this is your line in the sand, you need to rethink your priorities.
Want to stop it? Lobby your Congressmen. Lobby the President. Run for office, volunteer for civil rights campaigns.
Sitting at home and not voting isn't going to do shit.
Right, which is why your first post in this quote tree is bullshit.
I'll admit that within the "war on terror" framework this makes sense.
I just think that framework is a really really bad one.
Depends on how slippery the slope is.
Can we go back to talking about what Romney's favorite baked good is and what kind of breed Obama finds most delicious?
You could equally say "if you don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, that means we can never go to war, ever, because we might accidentally shoot a citizen."
Sorta.
It's more that the slippery slope only works if you can prove each transitive step along the way. Just assuming they all must be true because they resemble the first one is the logical fallacy technically.