rwieder 0 #76 October 5, 2011 QuoteRight on. THEY declared war on us. In my view, if an American decided they were going to join the terrorists and actively plot to attack us, then fuck 'em. We'll treat the sorry motherfuckers as war combatants. Capture or Kill. I guess you forgot about that Pearl Harbor thing? We've been targeting "Person's of Interests" for decades, what's with the Deer In The Headlight Look?" I'm assuming you were aware of JFK's plot to assinate Castro? They beat him to the punch. Don't tell me you disagree with "Advanced Interogation Teqniques" as well? I guess your PO about us assinating Bin Laden to?-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #77 October 5, 2011 Well, yeah. We have a long history of neutralizing threats. Usually, however, these were denied and secret because it's always been known to be illegal. Now we've gotten to the point of doing it and bragging about it. Even aging hippies rather enjoy that the government is wasting people. And regarding Mr. Vance - FUCK YOU BILLY!!! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #78 October 5, 2011 QuoteStill, I find both to be summary executions. Last week, the US government performed a premeditated execution of an American citizen without affording due process of law. No arrest, trial, conviction or appeal. The legal justification for same comes straight out of the Dubya playbook of legal juking and sidestepping. Jake Tapper Vs. Jay Carney On Killing US Citizens"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #79 October 5, 2011 Quote And regarding Mr. Vance - FUCK YOU BILLY!!! No need to shout, he can't hear you anyway. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #80 October 5, 2011 Trust us! We don't need to show you the evidence. We've got it. We won't discuss it any further. Thank you for this. It shows exactly my problem. The Administration isn't explaining itself. Maybe a good reason. Maybe a bad reason. But it gives no reason. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #81 October 5, 2011 That's why I type in all caps. I was kind of upset. I had a Birmingham radio station give him a birthday shout out and he didn't even acknowledge it or thank me. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #82 October 5, 2011 QuoteMy thinking, however, overcomes it. I think that every effort should be made to bring a person in alive. That the person, as a prisoner, should be cared for and afforded the opportunity to defend himself or herself before being convicted and sentenced. We, as Americans, have always shown a greater respect for human life than most. Especially the respect to EPWs and the like. We also have a Constitution that, while pesky, is still operative. Choosing to ignore the Constitution because of the inconvenience and difficulties it causes is an affront to rule of law. That's my problem. I hold "due process" to be greater than my subjective feelings about something. I do agree with this, in principle. In practice, though, we have the problem that the accused will often resist arrest, and some measure of force is necessary to (hopefully) be able to bring them to court where they may exercise their due process rights. Do we expect the police to never use deadly force, even when a suspect is killing hostages or police officers sent to arrest him? No, because in the balance we have decided that the police officer's right to protect her/himself against deadly force, or to protect the lives of hostages or bystanders, supersedes the suspect's right to due process. So in Mr. al-Awlaki's case, we might ask what are the limits to "every effort should be made to bring a person in alive"? He has known for some time that he is wanted on terrorism charges, and he chose to hide out in a country that lacked the will or the means (or maybe even the obligation) to apprehend him while he carried on activities that endangered the lives of innocent bystanders. How many US troops should we consider "expendable" to go and get him by force, in a country where we don't have jurisdiction and may not even be welcome? Is five dead soldiers "reasonable"? Twenty-five? How about Yemeni citizens who get caught in the cross-fire? I would certainly hope that there is something approximating "due process" before people can be placed on a "dead or alive" list, essentially a trial in absentia where the rights of the accused are represented, though of course their right to confront their accusers can't be met. I wouldn't expect such a proceeding to be public, as it would necessarily involve classified intelligence, but it would be good to know that such procedures are followed and that people are not targeted for deadly force by government bureaucrats based on a one-sided presentation of "facts" or hearsay. Assuming that, I have no problem with deadly force in response to a deadly threat if there is no other way to quickly eliminate the threat without unduly risking the lives of soldiers, or police, or innocent bystanders. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #83 October 5, 2011 Quote Well, yeah. We have a long history of neutralizing threats. Usually, however, these were denied and secret because it's always been known to be illegal. Now we've gotten to the point of doing it and bragging about it. Even aging hippies rather enjoy that the government is wasting people. And regarding Mr. Vance - FUCK YOU BILLY!!! Dood... I got booted for that kind of talk. Unless you are talking about romance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #84 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote Well, yeah. We have a long history of neutralizing threats. Usually, however, these were denied and secret because it's always been known to be illegal. Now we've gotten to the point of doing it and bragging about it. Even aging hippies rather enjoy that the government is wasting people. And regarding Mr. Vance - FUCK YOU BILLY!!! Dood... I got booted for that kind of talk. Unless you are talking about romance? It's a long running joke. It goes back to that fateful day at Fitzgerald, GA where I met Skymama for the first time. She walked up to me and straight up said "you're Billy? Fuck you Billy!" "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #85 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Well, yeah. We have a long history of neutralizing threats. Usually, however, these were denied and secret because it's always been known to be illegal. Now we've gotten to the point of doing it and bragging about it. Even aging hippies rather enjoy that the government is wasting people. And regarding Mr. Vance - FUCK YOU BILLY!!! Dood... I got booted for that kind of talk. Unless you are talking about romance? It's a long running joke. It goes back to that fateful day at Fitzgerald, GA where I met Skymama for the first time. She walked up to me and straight up said "you're Billy? Fuck you Billy!" OMG.....!! Mama really is kool..!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #86 October 5, 2011 The look on your face .... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
