US Born Yemen mullah Anwar Awlaki now shovelling coal

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Ok, Alan, you've now convinced me that you don't really read my posts, something I've suspected for a while now.

What have you been advising them about, their mortgages or their furnishings ?

The constitution has no issues with police or other government agencies killing people in certain circumstances, whether the dead person is a USC or not. Police and the army kill USC's every week of the year with no constitutional issues

If you are saying that is incorrect, you are out of your depth

The circumstances must include the impracticability of due process due to circumstances and the imperative and immediate need to save threatened life - and that is demonstrably the case here.

If your understanding of the constitution and the law is different to that then you are just talking xxxxx talk

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Oh no! A couple of US raised murdering Muslim terrorist ate a bomb. Boo hoo. Here...let me shed some tears.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I doubt that; I've been advising lawyers for almost 30 years. Besides, I know this is not about criminal law, so I must know more than you.

I'm sorry being the defendant doesn't count.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You must post invisible pixels, Chuck

does it not bother you that there's no checks and balances in this, no judicial review? no trial via the judicial system - just some secret memo via the executive branch to squash a usc?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Ok, Alan, you've now convinced me that you don't really read my posts, something I've suspected for a while now.

More good news!!! After sorting out the little pieces of Muslim terrorists, they found enough big chunks to believe there was a THIRD Muslim terrorist and this one was their top bomb maker!

BULLY SHOT!

These drones are AWESOME! Much better than the bomb vests and car bombs the Muslim terrorists use. We can kill bunches of them, very precisely, and none of the good guys die! Awesome! We do not even have to hijack an airplane like Muslim terrorists or use it as a "one time" bomb. we bring our own planes ans shoot missliles from them by remote control from Virginia EAT THIS!!!!!!!!!

This is so much better than carpet bombong and firestorms like we used in WW2 or the random slaughter of innocent people to destroy a specific target like the Muslim terrorists do.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What has this got to do with the post you responded to?

More good news!!! After sorting out the little pieces of Muslim terrorists, they found enough big chunks to believe there was a THIRD Muslim terrorist and this one was their top bomb maker!

BULLY SHOT!

These drones are AWESOME! Much better than the bomb vests and car bombs the Muslim terrorists use. We can kill bunches of them, very precisely, and none of the good guys die! Awesome! We do not even have to hijack an airplane like Muslim terrorists or use it as a "one time" bomb. we bring our own planes ans shoot missliles from them by remote control from Virginia EAT THIS!!!!!!!!!

This is so much better than carpet bombong and firestorms like we used in WW2 or the random slaughter of innocent people to destroy a specific target like the Muslim terrorists do.

[sandinista! 1,816]

whoops.

CIA drone strikes have led to far more deaths in Pakistan than previously understood, according to extensive new research published by the Bureau. More than 160 children are among at least 2,292 people reported killed in US attacks since 2004. There are credible reports of at least 385 civilians among the dead.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/most-complete-picture-yet-of-cia-drone-strikes/

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What has this got to do with the post you responded to?

Nothing specifically. Does it have to? I knew you would be happy to hear a third Muslim terrorist had been turned into salsa, and there are THREE less Muslim terrorists to make Muslims look bad.

I am glad. These people make good Muslims look bad. I will be glad when all of them are "Droned" and Muslims will no longer be discriminated against. Sad really.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[xebec 195]

Alan the Red. You seem frustrated by what you perceive to be people's unwillingness to directly engage your arguments. So, I'll try to oblige you...

"The US is at war with terrorists" Wrong. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There is no constitutional declaration of war here. The past two Presidents (and every president since FDR) as well as congress have ignored their constitutional duties by committing our troops to combat for longer than 90 days without a declaration of war. Nothing else would suffice to create a state of war between the United States and any foreign entity. Argue semantics and and precedents all you want....the constitution is absolutely clear.

"terrorists as defined by people who are actively engaged in attacking the USA and Americans at home and abroad" I hope the rest of the world understands this. Only acts against the United States are terrorism. Better tell your buds back in the U.K. they need a new word when someone sets off a bomb at Heathrow... Point is that terrorism is something that is much more nebulous than what you describe. It's causes, manifestations, and adherents are are so diverse, that it's almost impossible to define without context.... and that's how nation-states define terrorism, within the context that best serves the national (leaders) interests. Your definition would encompass all people who ever fought against the United States (Including the British).

"US cops kill US Citizens every week because those people threaten the lives of cops or others" Wrong. Cops kill people everyday who they "objectively believe will inflict imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others" Threatening isn't anywhere near that standard (Google "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard") And ultimately, law enforcement will be scrutinized for any killing, justifiable or not, and have to answer to the standard set by Graham v. Conner. In short, law enforcement must respect the 4th Amendment to the constitution. Very clear.

"and the constitution affords no protection for US Citizens actively attempting to kill other US Citizens in circumstances where arrest is impracticable." Wrong. See above.

"What about Bonny and Clyde[?]" What about them? They were ambushed by law enforcement, and died without firing a shot. These cops would be in prison if they did this today (unless they could marshal the law enforcement community to cover it up, which certainly still happens) Comparing Louisiana in 1934 to any situation now is ridiculous. If you don't understand this, why don't you ask some local cops if they can fire automatic weapons blindly into a vehicle driven by a violent felon, or a house where they are about to serve a high risk warrant.

"Lets stick to the the law and the constitution and tell me how its different to a cop using a sniper rifle to kill a kidnapper/hijacker in downtown Los Angeles. This guy was actively and currently and imminently engaged in killing Americans." Wrong. "imminent" means about to happen or immediately threatening.;i.e. someone is placed at risk of some harm or injury that could occur immediately. This has been applied to both police and civilians that have used deadly force against fellow citizens. It is the standard that must be met by anyone who hopes to successfully defend themselves in court. The federal government does not get a pass on meeting these same standards....in fact, the constitution was SPECIFICALLY written to limit the powers and authority of the federal government and the civil servants who now claim the authority to snuff out American citizens-without judicial review....without any oversight whatsoever. You claim to be be British, so I understand your comfort with this, but you you seem mystified by meeting resistance from Americans. Surprise, surprise...

"You cant [sic] give due process to a mountain lion when it has you by the throat - calling fish and wildlife dept isn't practical" Aha! Now we get to the real argument here. You fuzzy thinkers always drop your knickers, given enough time. When we drafted our constitution, we rejected the long held concept that men were simply beasts... to be slaughtered at will by the various inbred nobility of times past. Our constitution demands that we recognize that all human beings are born with a set of rights... Unalienable rights, natural rights....call them whatever makes an "atheist" (if there is such a thing) comfortable. These rights aren't something that can simply be dismissed....you didn't give them and you can't take them. Clear? Our federal government must certainly abide by the same social contract....it's not optional. There are a very limited set of circumstances under which government can take the extraordinary step of disregarding those limits set on it by the constitution. And no one has made that case satisfactorily, as far as I'm concerned. If you think you are up to the job "legal expert", then have at it. But you will have to come up with something much more convincing than Bonnie and Clyde.

What is truly alarming here is how many Americans are willing to surrender this sort of (unconstitutional) authority to anyone. They weave complex arguments, and cite endless cases (failing to recognize that much of case law is itself completely unconstitutional), or point to previous unconstitutional acts by former presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR. The constitution is crystal clear. Your personal fear, or sense of wounded "patriotism" isn't sufficient for you to simply abandon the social contract. It's binding.... we don't get to ignore it every time we wet our panties.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

whoops.

CIA drone strikes have led to far more deaths in Pakistan than previously understood, according to extensive new research published by the Bureau. More than 160 children are among at least 2,292 people reported killed in US attacks since 2004. There are credible reports of at least 385 civilians among the dead.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/most-complete-picture-yet-of-cia-drone-strikes/

It's okay. They would have been rock throwing terrorists eventually. Best to get them while they are young and can't throw that far.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

whoops.

CIA drone strikes have led to far more deaths in Pakistan than previously understood, according to extensive new research published by the Bureau. More than 160 children are among at least 2,292 people reported killed in US attacks since 2004. There are credible reports of at least 385 civilians among the dead.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/most-complete-picture-yet-of-cia-drone-strikes/

Thats a shame.

Still a lot better than what we had to do in the past or what Muslim terrosits do. I'll take it for now and hope for imporvement. They seem to be getting better at it.

Alan the Red. You seem frustrated by what you perceive to be people's unwillingness to directly engage your arguments. So, I'll try to oblige you...

"The US is at war with terrorists" Wrong. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There is no constitutional declaration of war here. The past two Presidents (and every president since FDR) as well as congress have ignored their constitutional duties by committing our troops to combat for longer than 90 days without a declaration of war. Nothing else would suffice to create a state of war between the United States and any foreign entity. Argue semantics and and precedents all you want....the constitution is absolutely clear.

"terrorists as defined by people who are actively engaged in attacking the USA and Americans at home and abroad" I hope the rest of the world understands this. Only acts against the United States are terrorism. Better tell your buds back in the U.K. they need a new word when someone sets off a bomb at Heathrow... Point is that terrorism is something that is much more nebulous than what you describe. It's causes, manifestations, and adherents are are so diverse, that it's almost impossible to define without context.... and that's how nation-states define terrorism, within the context that best serves the national (leaders) interests. Your definition would encompass all people who ever fought against the United States (Including the British).

"US cops kill US Citizens every week because those people threaten the lives of cops or others" Wrong. Cops kill people everyday who they "objectively believe will inflict imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others" Threatening isn't anywhere near that standard (Google "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard") And ultimately, law enforcement will be scrutinized for any killing, justifiable or not, and have to answer to the standard set by Graham v. Conner. In short, law enforcement must respect the 4th Amendment to the constitution. Very clear.

"and the constitution affords no protection for US Citizens actively attempting to kill other US Citizens in circumstances where arrest is impracticable." Wrong. See above.

"What about Bonny and Clyde[?]" What about them? They were ambushed by law enforcement, and died without firing a shot. These cops would be in prison if they did this today (unless they could marshal the law enforcement community to cover it up, which certainly still happens) Comparing Louisiana in 1934 to any situation now is ridiculous. If you don't understand this, why don't you ask some local cops if they can fire automatic weapons blindly into a vehicle driven by a violent felon, or a house where they are about to serve a high risk warrant.

"Lets stick to the the law and the constitution and tell me how its different to a cop using a sniper rifle to kill a kidnapper/hijacker in downtown Los Angeles. This guy was actively and currently and imminently engaged in killing Americans." Wrong. "imminent" means about to happen or immediately threatening.;i.e. someone is placed at risk of some harm or injury that could occur immediately. This has been applied to both police and civilians that have used deadly force against fellow citizens. It is the standard that must be met by anyone who hopes to successfully defend themselves in court. The federal government does not get a pass on meeting these same standards....in fact, the constitution was SPECIFICALLY written to limit the powers and authority of the federal government and the civil servants who now claim the authority to snuff out American citizens-without judicial review....without any oversight whatsoever. You claim to be be British, so I understand your comfort with this, but you you seem mystified by meeting resistance from Americans. Surprise, surprise...

"You cant [sic] give due process to a mountain lion when it has you by the throat - calling fish and wildlife dept isn't practical" Aha! Now we get to the real argument here. You fuzzy thinkers always drop your knickers, given enough time. When we drafted our constitution, we rejected the long held concept that men were simply beasts... to be slaughtered at will by the various inbred nobility of times past. Our constitution demands that we recognize that all human beings are born with a set of rights... Unalienable rights, natural rights....call them whatever makes an "atheist" (if there is such a thing) comfortable. These rights aren't something that can simply be dismissed....you didn't give them and you can't take them. Clear? Our federal government must certainly abide by the same social contract....it's not optional. There are a very limited set of circumstances under which government can take the extraordinary step of disregarding those limits set on it by the constitution. And no one has made that case satisfactorily, as far as I'm concerned. If you think you are up to the job "legal expert", then have at it. But you will have to come up with something much more convincing than Bonnie and Clyde.

What is truly alarming here is how many Americans are willing to surrender this sort of (unconstitutional) authority to anyone. They weave complex arguments, and cite endless cases (failing to recognize that much of case law is itself completely unconstitutional), or point to previous unconstitutional acts by former presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR. The constitution is crystal clear. Your personal fear, or sense of wounded "patriotism" isn't sufficient for you to simply abandon the social contract. It's binding.... we don't get to ignore it every time we wet our panties.

You should NOT vote for Obama! NO WAY!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's okay. They would have been rock throwing terrorists eventually. Best to get them while they are young and can't throw that far.

Rocks? Try AK 47's.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Rocks? Try AK 47's.

Now why would anyone throw a Kalashnikov?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nice try, but he won't read it.

Alan the Red. You seem frustrated by what you perceive to be people's unwillingness to directly engage your arguments. So, I'll try to oblige you...

"The US is at war with terrorists" Wrong. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There is no constitutional declaration of war here. The past two Presidents (and every president since FDR) as well as congress have ignored their constitutional duties by committing our troops to combat for longer than 90 days without a declaration of war. Nothing else would suffice to create a state of war between the United States and any foreign entity. Argue semantics and and precedents all you want....the constitution is absolutely clear.

"terrorists as defined by people who are actively engaged in attacking the USA and Americans at home and abroad" I hope the rest of the world understands this. Only acts against the United States are terrorism. Better tell your buds back in the U.K. they need a new word when someone sets off a bomb at Heathrow... Point is that terrorism is something that is much more nebulous than what you describe. It's causes, manifestations, and adherents are are so diverse, that it's almost impossible to define without context.... and that's how nation-states define terrorism, within the context that best serves the national (leaders) interests. Your definition would encompass all people who ever fought against the United States (Including the British).

"US cops kill US Citizens every week because those people threaten the lives of cops or others" Wrong. Cops kill people everyday who they "objectively believe will inflict imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others" Threatening isn't anywhere near that standard (Google "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard") And ultimately, law enforcement will be scrutinized for any killing, justifiable or not, and have to answer to the standard set by Graham v. Conner. In short, law enforcement must respect the 4th Amendment to the constitution. Very clear.

"and the constitution affords no protection for US Citizens actively attempting to kill other US Citizens in circumstances where arrest is impracticable." Wrong. See above.

"What about Bonny and Clyde[?]" What about them? They were ambushed by law enforcement, and died without firing a shot. These cops would be in prison if they did this today (unless they could marshal the law enforcement community to cover it up, which certainly still happens) Comparing Louisiana in 1934 to any situation now is ridiculous. If you don't understand this, why don't you ask some local cops if they can fire automatic weapons blindly into a vehicle driven by a violent felon, or a house where they are about to serve a high risk warrant.

"Lets stick to the the law and the constitution and tell me how its different to a cop using a sniper rifle to kill a kidnapper/hijacker in downtown Los Angeles. This guy was actively and currently and imminently engaged in killing Americans." Wrong. "imminent" means about to happen or immediately threatening.;i.e. someone is placed at risk of some harm or injury that could occur immediately. This has been applied to both police and civilians that have used deadly force against fellow citizens. It is the standard that must be met by anyone who hopes to successfully defend themselves in court. The federal government does not get a pass on meeting these same standards....in fact, the constitution was SPECIFICALLY written to limit the powers and authority of the federal government and the civil servants who now claim the authority to snuff out American citizens-without judicial review....without any oversight whatsoever. You claim to be be British, so I understand your comfort with this, but you you seem mystified by meeting resistance from Americans. Surprise, surprise...

"You cant [sic] give due process to a mountain lion when it has you by the throat - calling fish and wildlife dept isn't practical" Aha! Now we get to the real argument here. You fuzzy thinkers always drop your knickers, given enough time. When we drafted our constitution, we rejected the long held concept that men were simply beasts... to be slaughtered at will by the various inbred nobility of times past. Our constitution demands that we recognize that all human beings are born with a set of rights... Unalienable rights, natural rights....call them whatever makes an "atheist" (if there is such a thing) comfortable. These rights aren't something that can simply be dismissed....you didn't give them and you can't take them. Clear? Our federal government must certainly abide by the same social contract....it's not optional. There are a very limited set of circumstances under which government can take the extraordinary step of disregarding those limits set on it by the constitution. And no one has made that case satisfactorily, as far as I'm concerned. If you think you are up to the job "legal expert", then have at it. But you will have to come up with something much more convincing than Bonnie and Clyde.

What is truly alarming here is how many Americans are willing to surrender this sort of (unconstitutional) authority to anyone. They weave complex arguments, and cite endless cases (failing to recognize that much of case law is itself completely unconstitutional), or point to previous unconstitutional acts by former presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR. The constitution is crystal clear. Your personal fear, or sense of wounded "patriotism" isn't sufficient for you to simply abandon the social contract. It's binding.... we don't get to ignore it every time we wet our panties.

[xebec 195]

"You should NOT vote for Obama! NO WAY!"

I didn't mean to.....the ballot confused me.