US Born Yemen mullah Anwar Awlaki now shovelling coal

[Leatherneck 693]

Hmmm...the world would be better off without many American citizens that currently wander around. Perhaps the president, or some other civil servant, should have the authority to kill any of us, as long as it makes the world a better place. The founding fathers really missed the boat by not including that in our constitution.

Those ####### hats were not "American citizens that wander around." They cause

others to take the lives of innocent people. I have little use for those that shed the

blood of innocent people carrying about their daily business, especially children.

I am generally a huge defender of Constitutional principles...I make exceptions for

terrorist.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Ah...so what is important is the method of killing American citizens. Ok, got it. Now I know how to tell a true terrorist from the low-tech wannabees. This terrorism stuff is complicated...

Apparently it is for you. I'm guessing you lived in a cave the past few decades with no contact with the rest of the world.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I do stand corrected...my brothers night crawlers are in need of more food.

Wow, 3 for the price of 1. That improves the cost of that Hellfire that found its target.

I think we could bring in some pigs to clean up the mess, they eat anything.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's pretty simple, really. Remember, only Muslim killers are terrorists. All other killers are just killers.

Ah...so what is important is the method of killing American citizens. Ok, got it. Now I know how to tell a true terrorist from the low-tech wannabees. This terrorism stuff is complicated...

Edited October 2, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Just muslim terrorists? What about the narco-terrorists south of our border? Don't limit your horizons...this is the next big thing. The "war" on drugs clearly justifies drone strikes on these terrorists on both sides of the U.S./Mexican border.

And Obama's doing a fantastic job of impeaching himself-no further action is necessary.

Obama is working on that too! He fed them a couple thousand assault rifles to kill each other with. Maybe you didn't hear about that?

Really, you know, OBAMA is responsible for this. The ACLU should campaign against him, donate to Republicans. Seriously, the best way to stop this travesty is DO NOT vote for Obama. Do we need four more years?

[Captain Oates 911]

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.

The above is a perfect example how intellect and education can be perverted to evil causes and be 180 degrees wrong, while still thinking it is right and rational. The people who organized 9-11 were good planners and organizers and strategists and tacticians and religious scholars no doubt - but still mass murderers and unfit to live. That proves that intellect can end up at at 180 degrees to what is right

You cant argue with people who use advanced talents to come up with wrong, and murderous rationalizations but my quotes in this article stand, and the ridiculous twisting of them into pseudo intellectual mumbo-jumbo is self - negating and apparent

WE are not talking of wet pants and outrage - we are talking about murder and preventing future murder by people intent on murder. All the fancy talk wont get us away from that and you can count on me to bring the thread back to that

I would love to see you stand up in front of the Fort Hood families and read this post out loud.

I used to despair of the uneducated nature of the US electorate, but this article quoted here is the best example I have ever seen as to why common sense trumps intellect and education, and it gives me renewed hope for democracy based on the common sense of the ordinary citizen.

Educationally and intellectually brilliant, yet empty of empathy with the victims past and future, and a perversion of common sense and the difference between right and wrong as understood by the sane world

[xebec 195]

Apparently it is for you. I'm guessing you lived in a cave the past few decades with no contact with the rest of the world.

Hehe....you're the one that distinguished between drug trafficking violence, and some cases of muslim terrorism.Did the rapid exchange confuse you? A workable definition of terrorism might be a re-working of Chalmers Johnson's formulation "[Violence which] strikes at the innocent in order to [influence] the invulnerable." Your definition seems to define terrorism by method of violence. Why don't you ask the families of the two American girls kidnapped and presumably raped to death by the zetas (in order to terrorize citizens, local law enforcement, and Mexican national leaders into ceasing resistance to cartel activity) if this was terrorism.

Yes...I live in a cave, 80 miles from the border. I just peeked out and noticed violence against Americans is spreading upward from our southern border at an alarming rate. Better call in the drones...the sheep are stampeding

"I am generally a huge defender of Constitutional principles...I make exceptions for

terrorist."

There are no exceptions to the constitution....it is our binding social contract. It doesn't matter how afraid or angry you are. We are a nation of law, not emotion.

Listen friends, I don't begrudge you your anger, outrage, or patriotism. Those are fine emotions, honed by millions of years of evolution. But we are bound together, as a nation, by a single thing really.....our social contract. If you knock the underpinnings from this contract, you ultimately destroy one of the greatest achievements in human history. Our generation faces challenges, no doubt. But nothing that hasn't been faced by Americans before. We can face defend ourselves and our principles at the same time. There is no reason that we can't fight a 5th generation war (a good start would be making it just that.... a war), without destroying ourselves in the process.

I've said my piece...thanks for reading. I respect all who have contributed here. It's a worthy conversation .

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The above is a perfect example how intellect and education can be perverted to evil causes and be 180 degrees wrong, while still thinking it is right and rational. The people who organized 9-11 were good planners and organizers and strategists and tacticians and religious scholars no doubt - but still mass murderers and unfit to live. That proves that intellect can end up at at 180 degrees to what is right

The organisers/planners of 9-11 were akin to Goebbels and Mengele--both high intellects who were deep into one of the most evil causes ever (Nazism).

You cant argue with people who use advanced talents to come up with wrong, and murderous rationalizations but my quotes in this article stand, and the ridiculous twisting of them into pseudo intellectual mumbo-jumbo is self - negating and apparent

WE are not talking of wet pants and outrage - we are talking about murder and preventing future murder by people intent on murder. All the fancy talk wont get us away from that and you can count on me to bring the thread back to that

I would love to see you stand up in front of the Fort Hood families and read this post out loud.

I used to despair of the uneducated nature of the US electorate, but this article quoted here is the best example I have ever seen as to why common sense trumps intellect and education, and it gives me renewed hope for democracy based on the common sense of the ordinary citizen.

Educationally and intellectually brilliant, yet empty of empathy with the victims past and future, and a perversion of common sense and the difference between right and wrong as understood by the sane world

[xebec 195]

Thanks for reading Alan! I look forward to seeing your detailed rebuttal to my arguments. In reading your previous post, I gather you are a thinking man....above simple ad hominem.

[Captain Oates 911]

Hehe....you're the one that distinguished between drug trafficking violence, and some cases of muslim terrorism.Did the rapid exchange confuse you? A workable definition of terrorism might be a re-working of Chalmers Johnson's formulation "[Violence which] strikes at the innocent in order to [influence] the invulnerable." Your definition seems to define terrorism by method of violence. Why don't you ask the families of the two American girls kidnapped and presumably raped to death by the zetas (in order to terrorize citizens, local law enforcement, and Mexican national leaders into ceasing resistance to cartel activity) if this was terrorism.

Yes...I live in a cave, 80 miles from the border. I just peeked out and noticed violence against Americans is spreading upward from our southern border at an alarming rate. Better call in the drones...the sheep are stampeding

"I am generally a huge defender of Constitutional principles...I make exceptions for

terrorist."

There are no exceptions to the constitution....it is our binding social contract. It doesn't matter how afraid or angry you are. We are a nation of law, not emotion.

Listen friends, I don't begrudge you your anger, outrage, or patriotism. Those are fine emotions, honed by millions of years of evolution. But we are bound together, as a nation, by a single thing really.....our social contract. If you knock the underpinnings from this contract, you ultimately destroy one of the greatest achievements in human history. Our generation faces challenges, no doubt. But nothing that hasn't been faced by Americans before. We can face defend ourselves and our principles at the same time. There is no reason that we can't fight a 5th generation war (a good start would be making it just that.... a war), without destroying ourselves in the process.

I've said my piece...thanks for reading. I respect all who have contributed here. It's a worthy conversation .

You must be on an ego trip thinking people can't keep up with your brilliance and must be confused. Fact is that you aren't so clever or you would know this over lengthy and over-caffeinated raving is a real turn off, and as long as people like me are here to bring the conversation back to the murders that the people you sympathize with and excuse have committed, and plan to commit, you will always be cut off at the knees, and all your book work was all for nothing because the underlying moral worth of your argument is absent.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hehe....you're the one that distinguished between drug trafficking violence, and some cases of muslim terrorism.Did the rapid exchange confuse you? A workable definition of terrorism might be a re-working of Chalmers Johnson's formulation "[Violence which] strikes at the innocent in order to [influence] the invulnerable." Your definition seems to define terrorism by method of violence. Why don't you ask the families of the two American girls kidnapped and presumably raped to death by the zetas (in order to terrorize citizens, local law enforcement, and Mexican national leaders into ceasing resistance to cartel activity) if this was terrorism.

Yes...I live in a cave, 80 miles from the border. I just peeked out and noticed violence against Americans is spreading upward from our southern border at an alarming rate. Better call in the drones...the sheep are stampeding

"I am generally a huge defender of Constitutional principles...I make exceptions for

terrorist."

There are no exceptions to the constitution....it is our binding social contract. It doesn't matter how afraid or angry you are. We are a nation of law, not emotion.

Listen friends, I don't begrudge you your anger, outrage, or patriotism. Those are fine emotions, honed by millions of years of evolution. But we are bound together, as a nation, by a single thing really.....our social contract. If you knock the underpinnings from this contract, you ultimately destroy one of the greatest achievements in human history. Our generation faces challenges, no doubt. But nothing that hasn't been faced by Americans before. We can face defend ourselves and our principles at the same time. There is no reason that we can't fight a 5th generation war (a good start would be making it just that.... a war), without destroying ourselves in the process.

I've said my piece...thanks for reading. I respect all who have contributed here. It's a worthy conversation .

I live in a house. 8 miles from the border, and there is no violence here and not much on the other side. Hmmm

[xebec 195]

Oh, and btw. I would be honored to stand in front of my fellow grunts (11B, 1st of the 29th ITB, Ft. Benning), and defend our constitution.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Xebec convinced me. I am NOT voting for Obama.

[xebec 195]

I live in a house. 8 miles from the border, and there is no violence here and not much on the other side. Hmmm

PM me (can we do that here?) if you want to drop by sometime. There are a couple of Border Patrol here that can fill you in on the numerous incidents that they have responded to along the 83 corridor where I live. I'm happy things are quiet for you there....good luck with that.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Don't confuse a diatribe with Alan having read it. He didn't, I guarantee it.

Thanks for reading Alan! I look forward to seeing your detailed rebuttal to my arguments. In reading your previous post, I gather you are a thinking man....above simple ad hominem.

The Canadian border

I live in a house. 8 miles from the border, and there is no violence here and not much on the other side. Hmmm