tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post6675699572930348465..comments2023-09-15T08:07:28.542-06:00Comments on Western Hero: Awlaki's Dead. Justice Served?Silverfiddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-32949718401848769162011-10-06T19:08:08.884-06:002011-10-06T19:08:08.884-06:00You are mixing apples and oranges.
I understand y...You are mixing apples and oranges.<br /><br />I understand you want to treat this as a legal matter, and I am not opposed to that. <br /><br />We don't declare someone an enemy combatant through a legal procedure. It is a determination made based upon the person's action.<br /><br />Via legal action, we declare someone a criminal suspect, not an enemy combatant. They did not do that in this case. They simply determined he was an enemy combatant.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-38259455213077543162011-10-06T18:47:53.537-06:002011-10-06T18:47:53.537-06:00Awlaki walked like an enemy combatant, talked like...Awlaki walked like an enemy combatant, talked like an enemy combatant, and was operating on a battlefield when we greased him.<br /><br />Then we should have him legally declared as such. That is the only point that many are trying to make. Why didn't they do this? The time was there. Has it been done with Adam Gadan? If not, why not? <br /><br />Why are you against getting this people declared an enemy combatant in a court? This is what I don't understand. A small and select group of people shouldn't have this type of power.Just a conservative girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982406297072353275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-14212165673185363562011-10-06T05:25:19.647-06:002011-10-06T05:25:19.647-06:00I'm one of those dangerous returning vets as w...I'm one of those dangerous returning vets as well, Trestin.<br /><br />We have a legal mess, but Ron Paul is grossly exaggerating when he says this sets the precedent that a president can declare anyone an enemy and have them assassinated.<br /><br />To answer your question directly: No. IF the same circumstances apply.<br /><br />Awlaki walked like an enemy combatant, talked like an enemy combatant, and was operating on a battlefield when we greased him.<br /><br />The precedent set is that if you join up with an enemy we are at war with, you are a military target.<br /><br />I've mentioned Public Law 107-40, and no one who disagrees with me will touch it. <br /><br />I've answered questions, expored other arguments presented to me and even acknowledged that they have legal merit. I've asked other questions, but my worthy interlocutors on the other side just keep saying the same thing.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-15555595567283001812011-10-05T23:23:39.071-06:002011-10-05T23:23:39.071-06:00This the last I will say on this issue. Do you re...This the last I will say on this issue. Do you really feel comfortable with the executive having this kind of power?<br /><br />We have to go back again to what defines a terrorist? Myself and everyone coming back from the war are on a terror watch list. When you combine this with the ability to go after people for pre-crimes we have a huge problem. We have heavy Marxist elements in places of high power. These people want a revolution, and when Marxist have revolutions they use thing like this to kill people like you and me. <br /><br />What is the reward, what is the risk? Is it worth it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-36346687981264532362011-10-03T15:44:31.490-06:002011-10-03T15:44:31.490-06:00It's a pity we can't be more pithy, I know...<i>It's a pity we can't be more pithy, I know,<br />But prolixity, sometimes, can put on a good show.<br /><br />By patiently wading through all the dense prose,<br />An idea might found that with true brightness glows.<br /><br />I am not serious -- just having fun.<br />And now I am finished, over and done.</i><br /><br />Cheerio!<br /><br /> ~ FTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-56370135055775727192011-10-03T15:36:15.579-06:002011-10-03T15:36:15.579-06:00'Tis easier to be despised, rejected and deplo...<i>'Tis easier to be despised, rejected and deplored<br />Than earnestly participate and then wind up ignored.</i><br /><br />Shave and Haircut, Bay Rum!<br /><br />~ FTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-34129210556285482152011-10-03T13:15:27.490-06:002011-10-03T13:15:27.490-06:00I refer you, again, to the public law that authori...I refer you, again, to the public law that authorizes military action against AQ:<br /><br />http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/content-detail.html <br /><br />Your argument, if valid, declares all action against AQ illegal. Is that your position?<br /><br />Your argument rests upon the negation of "terrorists and enemy combatants," and instead treating them as criminals. I understand that. But you do realize you are then declaring illegal all military and non-law enforcement actions, right?<br /><br />If that is not your understanding, you need to read Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinch (a fine presidential ticket) a little closer, because that is exactly their point.<br /><br />I understand your point of view and your concerns that it may set a precedent. I really do.<br /><br />However, those who disagree with me apparently cannot make a similarly dispassionate evaluation of what my side is saying.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-15872689236042476332011-10-03T12:36:20.397-06:002011-10-03T12:36:20.397-06:00[quote]Finally, because this was a legitimate act ...[quote]Finally, because this was a legitimate act of war, authorized by congress, due process does not apply. [/quote]<br /><br />Nonsense. When was the last time Congress officially declared war? This was NOT a legitimate "act of war" anymore than it was authorized by Congress (hint: if it were, do you think Paul and Kucinich would be complaining AFTER the fact? Come on!). No where in the Patriot Act, nor in the additions added last time around, is the president authorized to order the death of an American citizen. <br /><br />It's not there. This was not a legitimate act; it was a bold, brash power-grab, but BO knew that his Obots wouldn't say anything (too loudly) and that the right would back up this unconstitutional addition to the president's power because it had to do with terrorism. Everyone is so predictable, this WH is just lapping it up, and we're all tyranny-bound. Sad.Fuzzy Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-71301682601711031912011-10-03T12:31:00.330-06:002011-10-03T12:31:00.330-06:00Trestin. The citizenship point from Finntann'...Trestin. The citizenship point from Finntann's research was an aside, which I probably should have clarified.<br /><br />The Obama administration made it clear that citizenship status was not operative in their decision-making. His status as a AQ member was. <br /><br />To your point, no precedent was set to declare someone a non-citizen and then kill them.<br /><br />Were he a simple cleric, I could see your point, but he was also a self-avowed recruiter and tactical planner, making him a legitimate target under Geneva Convention rules, which I'm not clear on whether we are following on not in instances like this.<br /><br />Finally, because this was a legitimate act of war, authorized by congress, due process does not apply.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-7634573017823820192011-10-03T10:26:20.105-06:002011-10-03T10:26:20.105-06:00The argument you made was that by his actions he n...The argument you made was that by his actions he no longer qualified as a citizen and was therefore not accorded due process. I simply pointed out that if the government can use this logic against a thug like him, they can use it against anyone down the road.<br /><br />As for him being a threat, perhaps, but he was a cleric. If we target radical clerics, why should we expect any enemy to not target our chaplains?<br /><br />The bottom line is what is the risk reward? What we gain is a dead dirt-bag who was a minor player in the grand scheme. What we risk is giving the executive power to order execution of citizens without due process. They had plenty of time to have him legally declared an enemy combatant, but we did not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-11100818460111627832011-10-03T10:19:51.990-06:002011-10-03T10:19:51.990-06:00PART THREE
As I freely admitted above, I am confl...PART THREE<br /><br />As I freely admitted above, <b>I am conflicted on the al Auluqi issue -- not because of ignorance of the "legalities" involved, but because I have grave doubts that interpretations of the Constitution and the Law that favor the use of dictatorial power</b> -- except in the most <i>extreme</i> emergencies -- are likely to have deadly long-range ramifications when placed in the hands of fiends and fools -- <i>as they so often are</i> given the present state of the electorate.<br /><br />I cited several historic instances above when various presidents voided the Constitution and assumed dictatorial powers not properly granted to them. <b><i>All of them got away with it</i></b> -- <i>probably because they had no scruples about jailing or otherwise stifling opposition</i>. <br /><br />Some -- like Lincoln and TR -- have been lauded as great heroes. FDR, who turned us into a quasi-Socialist "People's Republik" overnight, is regarded by far too many today as "one of our greatest presidents," if not <i>the</i> greatest president, we have ever had. <br /><br />We can castigate Ron Paul for being technically inaccurate all we like, but he raises an issue that is, I think, far more important than the narrow specifics of this particular case, which is not very important in and of itself. Dr. Paul dares to question and condemn much that has come to be accepted policy as undesirable, fundamentally immoral, and contrary to the best interests of American citizens as free, independent individuals. For that I applaud him. <br /><br />In my own defense I don't believe I have made any reference whatsoever to "dark conspiracy theories" in regard to the al Alauqi case. As Freethinke I may post many words, but most of them are well-considered statements of opinion based on much reading and a lifetime of observing human nature particularly as it effects human interaction in many spheres and world politics in particular.<br /><br /><i>[NOTE: Whenever I refer to the New World Order, or the longstanding plot to destroy US sovereignty and replace it with One World Government, which will be socialistic and dictatorial in nature, I accompany it with a direct quotation from one or two of the many VIPS -- men who have or have had high positions of tremendous power and influence -- who have been directly involved in these machinations and whose remarks are so unequivocal it would be impossible for anyone but a lawyers to misinterpret their meaning. If that is not "evidence," I can't imagine what would be.]</i><br /><br />The problem we need to consider is not whether something is LEGAL or not, but whether it is MORAL. As most of us should know by now, except in rare instances, legislation is created mostly by knaves, fools and selfish monsters of one kind or another. We need always to keep that in mind.<br /><br />~ FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-92009349281251443872011-10-03T10:18:51.283-06:002011-10-03T10:18:51.283-06:00PART TWO
If it were up to me, I would declare the...PART TWO<br /><br />If it were up to me, I would declare the vehement public expression of seditious opinions that encourage the violent overthrow of the principles on which we were founded -- <i>and the formation of organizations that hold such opinions</i> -- a treasonous offense punishable not so much by death as by imprisonment and ultimate deportation. <br /><br />Shocking to think like today, but, admittedly I'm a throwback to previous generations who held simpler, less legalistic views. For instance I still regard the rounding up of the Nisei after Pearl Harbor as a sane, logical thing to have done. If I'd been in Dubya's shoes on 911, I'd have initiated a similar action against every Muslim in the USA on 9/12/01. Discrimination against the most likely suspects may be unkind and unfair, but it's eminently practical in matters of this kind.<br /><br />The recent, much-vaunted declaration that <b>virtually everyone in the world must be given all the rights and privileges of a US citizen</b> when targeted for activity injurious to the interests of the USA or any of her citizens <i>[i.e. "Mirandizing" enemy soldiers on the battlefield before you dare retaliate against their attacks, etc.]</i> is absurd, impracticable and subjects our troops to greater potential harm than they deserve. In short our Rules of Engagement are stupid, self-defeating and downright evil. They should be summarily invalidated.<br /><br />~ FreeThinke<br /><br />(CONTINUED)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-42391456944467074502011-10-03T10:18:11.721-06:002011-10-03T10:18:11.721-06:00PART ONE
Having [finally!] read all the posts, I ...PART ONE<br /><br />Having <i>[finally!]</i> read all the posts, <b>I have been persuaded that SilverFiddle's position stands on firm legal ground</b>.<br /><br />SF said:<br /><br /><i>I simply believe that once someone states their allegiance to an organization that the US is at war with, that person becomes a legitimate military target.</i><br /><br />Yes, of course -- on the face of it -- but don't you feel the timing is a bit suspect? Not that that in any way affects the legal proprieties of the case.<br /><br />I have learned over six or seven decades to trust my perceptions and sense of intuition, and they tell me <i>this action was based not so much on law or any need and sincere desire to serve the interests of the USA in the fight against Islamic Terrorism, but rather to help this now-unpopular president regain some of his former standing in the polls</i>.<br /><br /><b>If I am right, that makes the eradication of al Aulaqi nothing more than a cynical political ploy</b>. I do realize, however, that that does nothing to weaken SF's argument from a legal perspective. For the record I felt and still feel the same about Bill Clinton's sudden intense interest and military involvement in the internal affairs of Kosovo-Serbia-Croatia. <i>Timing</i> is of paramount importance in the way we evaluate manmade events.<br /><br />SF also said: <i>Now, if he had set himself up in a hate-preaching mosque in London, different story and I would agree with you.</i><br /><br />Here oddly enough I <i>want</i> to disagree. <i>[I admitted to being conflicted, didn't I?]</i><br /><br />(CONTINUED)<br /><br />~ FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-48908856126853596462011-10-03T08:45:48.810-06:002011-10-03T08:45:48.810-06:00War is not a function of the justice department!
...War is not a function of the justice department!<br /><br />Barring the ability to arrest and try him your answer is what? Let him continue?<br /><br />By your logic if a brigade of Al Qaeda invades from Canada we can kill the 975 non-citizens but must arrest the 25 citizens that are fighting with them?<br /><br />The constitution itself recognizes the separate and distict powers of Justice and Defense. Your inability to do so is baffling.Finntannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09234170229108668040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-66843181561145802402011-10-03T07:18:10.036-06:002011-10-03T07:18:10.036-06:00I'm not referring to the patriot act. I am re...I'm not referring to the patriot act. I am referring to the congressional act that authorizes the president to prosecute a war against terrorists:<br /><br />http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/content-detail.html <br /><br />The president did not declare this man a terrorist. <b>Awlaki declared himself a terrorist,</b> in word and deed.<br /><br />I am in no way even hinting that you or others who make a similar case are "soft on terror." I debate with candor and good will, as Bill Bennett would say.<br /><br />I simply believe that once someone states their allegiance to an organization that the US is at war with, that person becomes a legitimate military target. The only alternative is to carve out a special exemption for them. There is no such exemption in the federal law I cite.<br /><br />Now, if he had set himself up in a hate-preaching mosque in London, different story and I would agree with you. But that's not what happened. <br /><br />IF you ignore the fact that this man declared himself an enemy of the United States and joined AQ...<br /><br />IF you ignore the fact that by an act of congress we are at war with AQ...<br /><br />IF you ignore the fact that he was on a battlefield (AQ is operating against Yemen in Yemen, and that country is at war with them)...<br /><br />... Then the constitutional concerns you cite are operative. We all agree the president can't order American citizens assassinated, but that is not what happened in this case. It was a congressionally-authorized military action against known and self-avowed AQ operatives.<br /><br />Ron Paul makes a patently false statement:<br /><br /><i>"The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone."</i><br /><br />Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/10/02/2011-10-02_an_unconstitutional_killing.html#ixzz1ZiwPeoNe<br /><br />He studiously ignores the additional factors I cite above, making it sound as though we can send hit squads into a library and kill tea partiers researching the constitution. <br /><br />It is a ridiculous, tendentious claim made upon a slippery slope. No such precedent was set. The precedent we set was that if an American citizen joins an organization we are at war with, he can be killed in military action.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-36635456347506946992011-10-03T06:10:23.874-06:002011-10-03T06:10:23.874-06:00No, again, you miss the point. This isn't abou...No, again, you miss the point. This isn't about terrorism at all to me, at least not as you're thinking of it. It's about granting the president the power to declare anyone a terrorist, at his whim, and ordering their death without trial or due process. I've no idea why you're veering, rather too close, toward suggesting that I'm soft on terror. <br /><br />For some reason you just can't seem to see past your own viewpoint or beyond this one terrorist. Again, I'm not arguing whether or not he was a terrorist, of course he was, and if he'd been picked up in the field and brought back and given a military tribunal, then executed, I'd be fine with it. That. is. not. the. point. This is about the president grabbing the power to call ANYONE a terrorist and have an American citizen killed without due process. The president does not have that power, or he didn't until now. <br /><br />You keep talking like the Patriot Act gave this power to order the execution of American citizens without due process. It does not; that would require a Constitutional AMENDMENT. That is why they were talking about a bill to strip an "enemy combatant" of their citizenship--a move I also think is too much power for US to relinquish. I could give a rat's ass about terrorists (actual terrorists). I care about us, as American citizens, about our rights, our freedoms, and our Constitution. It's not hard to understand, so I'm not sure why you don't get it.Fuzzy Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-73898828156783619122011-10-03T05:55:37.750-06:002011-10-03T05:55:37.750-06:00AOW: I'm well aware of the Duckmeister's ...AOW: I'm well aware of the Duckmeister's tactics, which is why it amazes me any time we agree on something.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-51410688742964672012011-10-03T05:54:25.447-06:002011-10-03T05:54:25.447-06:00Fuzzy:
I am not being purposefully obtuse.
There ...Fuzzy:<br />I am not being purposefully obtuse.<br /><br />There are two distinct way to look at this: a terrorist is a combatant, or a terrorist is a criminal.<br /><br />I take the first view. You and Ron Paul and other take the second.<br /><br />The US government, by its deliberate actions, also took the first view and treated him as such.<br /><br />I expand on this over at your blog.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-69118797084532308102011-10-03T05:40:37.814-06:002011-10-03T05:40:37.814-06:00I've tried to explain this so many times, and ...I've tried to explain this so many times, and I just can't seem to state it clearly enough. I'm honestly not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if it's just my failure to communicate effectively.<br /><br />Have you read Ron Paul's piece on this? Maybe you'll find that more clear: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/10/02/2011-10-02_an_unconstitutional_killing.html<br /><br />If you still don't understand what we're saying, I have to give up. I obviously am not getting through (or you're just being funny, I'm not really sure at this point).Fuzzy Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-24780459770406259122011-10-03T05:35:40.403-06:002011-10-03T05:35:40.403-06:00Fuzzy:
Finn's post states what I am trying to ...Fuzzy:<br />Finn's post states what I am trying to say.<br /><br />Yes. Congress did approve military action against AQ. Awlaki joined that organization and thus became a legitimate target.<br /><br />I am arguing this specific case because I am sticking to the facts.<br /><br />You mention the constitution, but you do not make the connection between it and this military action.<br /><br />Had this man been a loudmouth dissenter on the streets of London and we assassinated him, I would understand your point, but that's not what happened.<br /><br />He joined a military organization that we, by law, are at war with, by congressional authorization as spelled out in the constitution.<br /><br />Now, please answer my question about the brigade of American traitors. Can we engage them or not? <br /><br />Is a traitorous American ever a valid military target?Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-26771424702143961532011-10-03T05:20:09.920-06:002011-10-03T05:20:09.920-06:00Silverfiddle,
Duck may somewhat agree with you in ...Silverfiddle,<br />Duck may somewhat agree with you in this thread, but over <a href="http://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/2011/10/roseanne-barr-im-in-favor-of-return-of.html" rel="nofollow">at</a> my site, he said the following yesterday in reference to Roseanne Barr's comment about beheading bankers:<br /><br /><i>Here I thought we should just pull them out of their cars and beat them with tire irons.<br /><br />Either gets their attention.</i><br /><br />Just an FYI.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-40632408028451102242011-10-02T23:47:20.876-06:002011-10-02T23:47:20.876-06:00I suppose by your reasoning we should have been ar...I suppose by your reasoning we should have been arresting and trying confederates in the civil war?<br /><br />I suppose also, you've never heard of the Whisky Rebellion.<br /><br />Your argument against military action against al qaeda is specious.<br /><br />You fail to make a distinction between execution and death by military action which is a recognized legal distinction.<br /><br />If you kill a man in battle, well that's war. If you kill a man after the battle is over, and he does not have the means to resist, that's murder.<br /><br />Al Awlaki by all definitions is an unlawful combatant:<br /><br />"Someone who is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies -- or who materially supports hostilities against the United States or its allies -- without being a member of a regular armed force of another country."<br /><br />He also maintained the means to resist, and was quite proud of it.<br />He was killed in a military strike against an organization that congress has authorized military action against. <br /><br />If he were in custody and executed, your argument would have more merit.Finntannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09234170229108668040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-37027765064142764512011-10-02T23:01:37.228-06:002011-10-02T23:01:37.228-06:00Why don't you two get a room?Why don't you two get a room?Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-67203278244503729052011-10-02T20:37:27.689-06:002011-10-02T20:37:27.689-06:00LOL, now you're just being silly. Are you rea...LOL, now you're just being silly. Are you really trying to argue that Congress gave the president the power to sign death warrants on American citizens? <br /><br />And even if that were true--and we both know it's not, that, too, would be unconstitutional. Just like ObamaCare is being contested on constitutional grounds.Fuzzy Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-76511999631914997022011-10-02T20:34:51.949-06:002011-10-02T20:34:51.949-06:00The congressional sanction vitiates any constituti...The congressional sanction vitiates any constitutional concern. Indeed, out government had followed the constitution, and now everyone complains about the result.<br /><br />Fine. Demand then that that congress retract the permission it gave the executive branch to prosecute the war on terror. And do not cry when we must refrain from attack because an "American" is squatting in the mud fort infested with America haters.Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.com