I want to see you explain this with a straight face. The following is so bad that even Olbermann blasted Obama for it.


Bush-Cheney were for indefinite detainment. They were against habeas corpus. They were for rendition. They were for warrantless wiretapping. They were for warrantless search and seizure. They were for gag orders. They were for the Patriot Act.

ALL OF THESE THINGS, the Obama administration is either outright supports or implicitly supports.

But never did Bush-Cheney authorize an assassination of a US citizen without due process.

Congrats Obama supporters ... you've reached a new low. A level of shitting on civil liberties SO BAD ... even Bush-Cheney couldn't stomach it. Well done. Well done, indeed.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_...index.html

Hows that hopey, changey thing working for ya?

Well I'm not sure I'm one of the Obama-ites per-se, but I'll take a crack at it.

Obama certainly is ultra-liberal when it comes to social issues for the poor and minorities. He continues to over-govern like crazy. If Anwar al-Awlaki were living in an inner-city and was on welfare, he could do no wrong in the president's eyes.

But on a few issues, Obama is decidedly moderate and even a bit conservative. There's this and some other extension of Bush policies in Afghanistan, the nuclear policy, the recent decision to drill for oil, etc.

He's like a coach for a struggling team who constantly changes his line-up in an effort to make the team successful. But he stays with the quarterback even though all the fans know the QB sucks. Ultimately the coach will get fired and that is what will probably happen here. Unless somehow the quarterback (health care and the economy I guess in this case) has a miraculous comeback.

Shouldn't be an outright assassination order. Wanted: dead or alive should be sufficient.

(04-10-2010 07:12 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Shouldn't be an outright assassination order. Wanted: dead or alive should be sufficient.

I think he should have been tried in abstentia.

Moreover, the US should be looking for new clerics in the US who are doing the same thing.

If you have people preaching outright hate and calling for the destruction of the US. Yeah................ you kill them. I see a gaigantic difference here than going into Iraq for WMD's. This isn't a Jose Padilla deal either where we lock them up forever without a trial.

(04-10-2010 07:12 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Shouldn't be an outright assassination order. Wanted: dead or alive should be sufficient.

That is the correct way of doing it.

(04-10-2010 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you have people preaching outright hate and calling for the destruction of the US. Yeah................ you kill them.

Under your scenario, the majority of Americans, for no reason other than opposing the left, would continue to be falsely accused... and killed, while the true haters and those who have actually tried to destroy America would continue to be made college professors.

(04-10-2010 09:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-10-2010 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you have people preaching outright hate and calling for the destruction of the US. Yeah................ you kill them.

Under your scenario, the majority of Americans, for no reason other than opposing the left, would continue to be falsely accused... and killed, while the true haters and those who have actually tried to destroy America would continue to be made college professors.

In Mach's world, Fo you're a dead man.

(04-10-2010 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you have people preaching outright hate and calling for the destruction of the US. Yeah................ you kill them. I see a gaigantic difference here than going into Iraq for WMD's. This isn't a Jose Padilla deal either where we lock them up forever without a trial.

I don't like the idea of assasinating US citizens. It seems they actually have intelligence that he is personally attacking the US. Is there a better way to do this outside of assasination? I don't know. Holding a person indefinately doesn't seem like a good answer. A trial would work but the question(and argument) will continue as to where try the person-military or civilian court. I just worry that this would lead to less discression on who gets assasinated and for what reason. Heck, someday PaulM, SOAF and Rebel may be on the list.

(04-10-2010 12:51 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-10-2010 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you have people preaching outright hate and calling for the destruction of the US. Yeah................ you kill them. I see a gaigantic difference here than going into Iraq for WMD's. This isn't a Jose Padilla deal either where we lock them up forever without a trial.

I don't like the idea of assasinating US citizens. It seems they actually have intelligence that he is personally attacking the US. Is there a better way to do this outside of assasination? I don't know. Holding a person indefinately doesn't seem like a good answer. A trial would work but the question(and argument) will continue as to where try the person-military or civilian court. I just worry that this would lead to less discression on who gets assasinated and for what reason. Heck, someday PaulM, SOAF and Rebel may be on the list.

US citizens are not subject to Military Tribunal, Bozo. People in the military are subject to the USCMJ already.

(04-10-2010 04:58 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Hows that hopey, changey thing working for ya?

It's frightening to me how Paul's mind works. I certainly wasn't advocating for anyone like Fo to be put on a list. You really seem to hate America Paul. People are free to voice dissent, but this guy has a long list of treason. May God have mercy on your soul. You have a very simple and twisted mind.

Paul's best friend

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 38) in Las Cruces, New Mexico)[3][5][6][7] is an American Muslim lecturer, spiritual leader, and former imam reputed to be a senior talent recruiter and motivator "for al-Qaeda and all of its franchises."[8][9] In 2009, he reportedly was promoted to the rank of regional commander within al-Qaeda.[4][10] With a blog and a Facebook page, he has been described as the "bin Laden of the internet."[11] He denies he is involved with al-Qaeda.[12][13]

Al-Awlaki's sermons in San Diego were attended in 2000 by two of the 9/11 hijackers, with whom he also met privately.[14][15] Shortly after he moved from San Diego to Virginia in 2001, one of the hijackers from San Diego soon appeared at his Virginia mosque, along with a third of the hijackers.[14][15] Investigators believe al-Awlaki knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.[14][15]

His sermons were also attended by the accused Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan.[16] In addition, U.S. intelligence intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki from December 2008 to June 2009, including one in which Hasan wrote: "I can't wait to join you [in the afterlife]."[17] After the killing of 13 people in the Fort Hood shooting, al-Awlaki praised Hasan's actions.[18][19]

According to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 al-Qaeda terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009, al-Awlaki was his recruiter, and one of his trainers.[20][21][22] Yemeni authorities, searching for al-Awlaki because of his suspected connection to al-Qaeda, have been unable to locate him since March 2009. By early 2010, according to an unnamed U.S. official al-Awlaki was "working actively to kill Americans", and President Obama authorized his targeted killing.[23][24][22]

(04-10-2010 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you have people preaching outright hate and calling for the destruction of the US. Yeah................ you kill them.

WHAT??????

Congrats Mach -- you're a neocon when it comes to the justice system and civil liberties.

(04-10-2010 01:13 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

I eagerly await your justification.

I see a neo con as someone who puts Isreal's interests before our own. This guy has been training Al Quadea wt hell?

(04-10-2010 04:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I see a neo con as someone who puts Isreal's interests before our own. This guy has been training Al Quadea wt hell?

A neoconservative is defined by an aggressive pre-emptive foreign policy, increase in government size, scope, spending, and power, a decrease in individual liberties and freedoms, and throwing all rights and the justice system completely out the window if somebody "is a terrorist."

e.g. - George W. Bush.

And your statement above fits the last tenant of the neocon platform quite snugly.

(04-10-2010 04:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-10-2010 04:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I see a neo con as someone who puts Isreal's interests before our own. This guy has been training Al Quadea wt hell?

A neoconservative is defined by an aggressive pre-emptive foreign policy, increase in government size, scope, spending, and power, a decrease in individual liberties and freedoms, and throwing all rights and the justice system completely out the window if somebody "is a terrorist."

e.g. - George W. Bush.

And your statement above fits the last tenant of the neocon platform quite snugly.

so basically you're saying that obama is pretty close to being a neo-con?

(04-10-2010 03:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's frightening to me how Paul's mind works. I certainly wasn't advocating for anyone like Fo to be put on a list. You really seem to hate America Paul. People are free to voice dissent, but this guy has a long list of treason. May God have mercy on your soul. You have a very simple and twisted mind.

Not following you. He's no friend of mine. I said put out a warrant for him. Dead or Alive. I'd be just fine if he ended up dead in the execution of said warrant.

Fo?

I responded to you saying people preaching outright hate and calling for the destruction of the US should be killed. I strongly disagree. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the whole damn administration claim, with not a damned bit of backing evidence, that everyone who has gone to a tea party, agrees with them or has conservative values fit that bill. Your side and the press continue to make these outragous charges against the right and when the video tapes prove the lies being told are just that, lies, no shame is shown at all. Just a repeat of the same lies about the next tea party or conservative event.

And the left keep being taped preaching outright hate and calling for our destruction. And it gets ignored. And I don't believe you are going to stand by your statement and call for the deaths of all your associates on the left. The politicians and professors and news paper editors and reporters. Print and on-line. Ayers, Wright, Dornan, Alinsky. I don't agree with the hate spewed from the left, but I tolerate it. They are free to speak, same as me. It's the job of good people to refute, ostracize, and marginalize those full of hate and who wish harm on us.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of a doubt. I don't believe you mean what you said. If you do, if you are so intolerant to even want death, and many on your side are and do, for what our forefathers deemed a God given right, you would be the one who's in need of mercy.