US Born Yemen mullah Anwar Awlaki now shovelling coal

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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.

Great post.

[Golden Gate 530]

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.

Gary lives in Vermont - he is talking about the other border.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I was able to find a justification in the Constitution for the killing. I do understand your passion, I share it, and I applaud your reasoning, but there is an Article that covers this situation.

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.

Xebec convinced me. I am NOT voting for Obama.

I'll probably vote for him if Christie doesn't run.

[xebec 195]

Oh btw Gary....just ignore the State Department travel warnings...."You should be especially aware of safety and security concerns when visiting the northern border states of Northern Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. Much of the country's narcotics-related violence has occurred in the border region. More than a third of all U.S. citizens killed in Mexico in 2010 whose deaths were reported to the U.S. government were killed in the border cities of Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana. Narcotics-related homicide rates in the border states of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas have increased dramatically in the past two years.

This is simply propaganda designed to get you to vote for Obama again.

[xebec 195]

Gary lives in Vermont - he is talking about the other border.

AH...Gary got me. Very clever! I'm glad you guy's border is safer than ours....

[Captain Oates 911]

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.

On an educational or intellectual level, I have enough gongs hanging on my wall to stand toe to toe with most people on here, but I am not outstanding or a master in any of these areas and I don't brag that my brilliance confuses others or they cant keep up. My strength is in my background in the streets and in the down and dirty areas of life where the pure intellectuals have never been.

I know that any debater can be cut down to size by a simple statement of truth that everyone acknowledges to be 'self - evident'

The truth is that this clever, educated Moslem scholar the late unlamented, had morality back to front so his educational and intellectual accomplishments were worth NOTHING - just the same as some posters on here who sound just dandy, but who are urinating down the back of the American public and telling them it is raining - and setting out a fine educated-sounding reasoning for their weather forecast.

Alas they are vulnerable to Reaganesque, simple, common sense pricking of their balloons and murder is murder and this guy was a murderer and was un-arrestable and planned further murders and society had no choice and did the right thing.

That is such a simple little sentence but is unassailable, even by a 10 page treatise of pie in the sky theoretical clap trap

I am with the US government and against the apologists for, and excusers of, the terrorist murderers. I believe in the US constitution totally - and I believe this act was totally in accordance of how law enforcement/the army have always acted and thus was constitutional

This rag bag of truculent and unforthcoming Moslem posters and intellectual brainiac hippies on this thread should be formed into a special corps to be sent to places like Yemen to effect the peaceful capture of other terrorists by appealing to their better nature and suggesting they come back for trial

Edited October 2, 2011 by Alan the Red

[xebec 195]

I was able to find a justification in the Constitution for the killing. I do understand your passion, I share it, and I applaud your reasoning, but there is an Article that covers this situation.

Enlighten me. I assume you are referring to the "lost clauses".... treason and/or attainder?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

On an educational or intellectual level, I have enough gongs hanging on my wall to stand toe to toe with most people on here, but I am not outstanding or a master in any of these areas and I don't brag that my brilliance confuses others or they cant keep up. My strength is in my background in the streets and in the down and dirty areas of life where the pure intellectuals have never been.

I know that any debater can be cut down to size by a simple statement of truth that everyone acknowledges to be 'self - evident'

The truth is that this clever, educated Moslem scholar the late unlamented, had morality back to front so his educational and intellectual accomplishments were worth NOTHING - just the same as some posters on here who sound just dandy, but who are urinating down the back of the American public and telling them it is raining - and setting out a fine educated-sounding reasoning for their weather forecast.

Alas they are vulnerable to Reaganesque, simple, common sense pricking of their balloons and murder is murder and this guy was a murderer and was un-arrestable and planned further murders and society had no choice and did the right thing.

That is such a simple little sentence but is unassailable, even by a 10 page treatise of pie in the sky theoretical clap trap

I am with the US government and against the apologists for, and excusers of, the terrorist murderers. I believe in the US constitution totally - and I believe this act was totally in accordance of how law enforcement/the army have always acted and thus was constitutional

This rag bag of truculent and unforthcoming Moslem posters and intellectual brainiac hippies on this thread should be formed into a special corps to be sent to places like Yemen to effect the peaceful capture of other terrorists by appealing to their better nature and suggesting they come back for trial

If they knew where he was, how was he immune to capture?

Edited October 2, 2011 by Sousuke

[Captain Oates 911]

If they knew where he was, how was he immune to capture?

I know where the lion is in London zoo, but I don't know how to capture him (and live)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I know where the lion is in London zoo, but I don't know how to capture him (and live)

Whilst you may not, the experts do. How do you think the lion arrived in the zoo.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Treason, yes. Come, let us reason together.

I was able to find a justification in the Constitution for the killing. I do understand your passion, I share it, and I applaud your reasoning, but there is an Article that covers this situation.

Enlighten me. I assume you are referring to the "lost clauses".... treason and/or attainder?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary lives in Vermont - he is talking about the other border.

And? It is an international border. What is the difference?

[sandinista! 1,816]

And? It is an international border. What is the difference?

is there a canadian equivalent to tijuana or ciudad juarez?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

AH...Gary got me. Very clever! I'm glad you guy's border is safer than ours....

Why? I mean, why is it safer? It is an international border. Canada IS another country and they will even tell you that if you ask them. A lot of drugs get smuggled here and they catch a bunch of them often enough. Many times I have seen helicopters over the border area north of my home with spotlights on at night...I KNOW what they are doing. There are signs in our town to report suspicious watercraft landing on our shores (the lake we live on extends into Canada, launch a boat there, land it in Vermont, no border guards on the water)

But...no violence. Never a border patrol guy killed, never a Vermont cop killed in the line of duty, no Quebec cops killed, no Quebecois kidnapped or killed...#######????

Can you explain? I would say that they should just do the same thing in Texas as we do here. Yeah, that's it. Looky here, the Quebecois can be annoying, no question, but by and large they are good neighbors, come and spend money and go back. I mean we COULD have Belarus or Georgia like we did in Ukraine...know what I'm sayin'?

83 corridor? In Texas? I was born and raised near Winters, TX, Hwy 83 goes right through Winters.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

is there a canadian equivalent to tijuana or ciudad juarez?

Sherbrooke? A blasphemous outpost of English speakers!

But why isn't there?